Australian Tribunals (3 November 2026)

Send us Fan Mail A quiet day at the Trade Marks Office and two state tribunals: six decisions in the Tribunals edition of Tuesday 3 November 2026, one with a headnote and one worked example. A restaurant owner who held the trade mark in her own name while her company traded, and lost it for non use; and a trap in health practitioner discipline, where interim conditions lapse once the complaint is decided. Tribunals Desk: a trade mark, a restaurant and its company (lead). Liyuan You v Jonathon Rossi [2026] ATMO 217 - removal for non use (s 92(4)(b)): real commercial use need not be continuous or substantial, but goods and services are proved separately; use by the owner's company is not the owner's use unless control under s 8 is proved, a question of fact and degree not assumed from mere association; obstacles to use need evidence (s 100(3)(c)); the owner must positively satisfy the Registrar that retention is reasonable (s 101(3)). Opposition rejected; removal directed; costs against the owner. JADE Tribunals Desk: interim conditions, costs and reprimands (worked example from a synopsis; legal framework only; no orders stated on air). Health Care Complaints Commission v Nulty [2026] NSWCATOD 142 - synopsis: interim conditions imposed by a Council under s 150 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) lapse under s 150H(2)(a) when the complaint is disposed of, so fresh orders under s 149A(1)(b) are needed if they are to continue; Sch 5D cl 13 displaces the NCAT Act s 60 special circumstances rule, and costs generally follow the event absent disentitling conduct by the HCCC; withdrawal of particulars before hearing is not, without more, disentitling; the purposes of a reprimand. JADE Registry and the thread (listed without reasons; by subject only; no outcome stated): Stanhope SC Pty Ltd atf Stanhope SC Investment Trust v Sharetea Leasing Pty Ltd [No 3] [2026] NSWCATAP 343 (costs); Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAP 342 (appeal grounds); Jones v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 336 (administrative review); Butler v JH & MH Pty Ltd and ors [2026] QCAT 503 (race discrimination). Case notes Liyuan You v Jonathon Rossi [2026] ATMO 217 - Tracey Berger, Hearing Officer (Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks), 26 October 2026. Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) ss 7(3), 8, 92(4)(b), 100(1), 100(3)(c), 101(3), 221; Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth) Sch 8. Held: the dated photograph and third-party records, taken cumulatively, showed a restaurant trading under the mark in the relevant period, but not which class 30 goods were offered; the contemporaneous documents identified the owner's company as proprietor and operator; the owner's role, including as nominated food safety supervisor, was not explained in terms of the authority or supervision she exercised, so control was not proved and the s 100 onus was not discharged; the discretion was not exercised (limited evidence of scale, duration and reputation, no subsequent use, an intention to resume unsupported beyond ABN and business-name re-registrations). Why aired: an owner who trades through her own company must prove control; association is not enough. Health Care Complaints Commission v Nulty [2026] NSWCATOD 142 - K Robinson, Principal Member; P Sinclair and J Zwart, Senior Members; B Seth, General Member; 3 November 2026. Signal: Illustrative. Per