Recent cases in which Ryan has acted as counsel include:

o    Naked Wines International Limited v Ashwood Estate Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 241
Trade marks - opposition to registration – ss 42(b), 44, 58A and 60

o    Hamdard Laboratories (WAQF) Pakistan v Hamdard National Foundation (India) NSD1970/2025
Trade marks - appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks – opposition to registration under ss 60, 42(b), 58A and 62A - application for removal on the grounds of ss 92(4)(a) and 92(4)(b) - application for cancellation under s 88(1) on the grounds of ss 42(b), 58, 60, 62A and 88(2)(c) - alleged infringement under s 120(1)

o    Friction Sweepers International (FSI) Pty Ltd v Glide-Tec Pty Ltd & ors VID1394/2025
Equity – alleged breaches of fiduciary duties - Corporations – alleged breaches of ss 182 and 183 – interlocutory application for injunctive relief

o    Activated Carbon Technologies Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks VID848/2025
Trade marks - appeal from decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks – rejection of applications for registration under s 44

o    AAA Packaging Supplies Pty Ltd v Sendy Limargana & anor VID844/2025
Trade marks - appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks – opposition to removal for non-use on the grounds of s 92(4)(b)

o    Bickford's Australia v Noot Drinks Co SAD39/2025
Trade marks – alleged infringement – cross-claims for cancellation on the grounds of ss 24, 41 and 88(2)(c) and removal for non-use on the grounds of s 92(4)(b)

o    Carroll & Richardson-Flagworld v Yishengda Trading Pty Ltd  VID429/2025
 Copyright - alleged infringement - Aboriginal flag design

o    Caporaso v Mercato Centrale Australia [2025] HCADisp 52
Trade marks - application for special leave to appeal to the High Court

o    WAG Petfoods Pty Ltd v Watch and Grow Food Co Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 51
Trade marks - opposition to registration – ss 58, 44 and 60

o    Monster Energy Company v Shanghai Aiqia Food & Beverage Management Co [2025] ATMO 39
Trade marks - opposition to registration – ss 42(b), 44 and 60

o    Rock Solid Industries International v Armorman 4x4  VID681/2023
Registered designs – application for default judgment under r 5.23(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

o    Caporaso v Mercato Centrale Australia [2024] FCAFC 156; 181 IPR 249
Trade marks - s 62(b)  – where an Examiner considered that a trade mark under examination was not inherently adapted to distinguish in respect of a certain class, and sought evidence or representations as to the trade mark applicant’s prior use of the mark – where the representations as to prior use by the trade mark applicant were false – where the primary judge held that the trade mark in question was inherently adapted to distinguish, and so evidence of prior use was irrelevant to the registrability of the mark – whether the primary judge erred in holding that evidence or representations are not “false in material particulars” unless false in a way that affects the registrability of the trade mark – Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 160; 67 IPR 628 and Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 184; 164 FCR 506, considered – held: the ground of opposition in s 62(b) can be established even where the evidence or representations in question are false in particulars that were not relevant to a proper assessment of the registrability of a mark, provided the requisite causal link with the acceptance of the mark for registration exists; Observations on the correct approach to appellate review of evaluative findings on an appeal by way of rehearing – Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531, applied

o    Hamilton Locke Pty Ltd v Hamilton & Co Legal Pty Ltd [2024] ATMO 236
Trade marks - opposition to registration – ss 42(b), 44, 58A and 60

o    369 Labs Pty Ltd v BP plc [2024] ATMO 209
Trade marks - opposition to removal for non-se on the grounds of s 92(4) 

o    One Green Cup v The Green Cup [2024] ATMO 77
Trade marks - opposition to registration – ss 42(b), 43, 44, 59, 60 and 62(b)

o    Caporaso v Mercato Centrale Australia [2024] FCA 138; 181 IPR 78
Trade marks - alleged infringement of trade marks including the plain word mark mercato – whether the respondent has used, as a trade mark, a sign that is deceptively similar to any one of the applicant’s trade marks sued upon – cross-claim for cancellation of trade marks or rectification of the Register of Trade Marks in respect of them – whether the cross-respondent was the owner of the trade mark mercato at the time that it applied for registration of it – whether the trade mark mercato is inherently capable of distinguishing the goods and services of the cross-respondent from the goods and services of other traders – whether the word mercato, in its ordinary signification, is commonly understood to mean market among those with an interest in the relevant goods and services – whether other traders should be permitted to use the word in its ordinary signification to describe their goods and services – whether evidence of trade usage of the word supports a conclusion that the word has an established meaning among a target audience comprised of English speaking Australians – whether the registration of a trade mark resulted from representations or evidence that were false in material particulars – meaning of “material particulars” in s 62(b) – infringement action dismissed – cross-claim allowed in part

o    O'Brien Glass Industries Limited v O'Brien Boiler Services NSD55/2023, NSD136/2023
Trade marks - appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks – opposition to registration under ss 42(b), 44, and 60 - application for removal under s 92 - application for cancellation under s 88(1) on the grounds of ss 58, 60 and 88(2)(c) - alleged infringement under ss 120(1), 120(2) and 120(3)

o    Monster Energy Company v Northern Innovations Holding Corp VID430/2023
Trade marks - appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks – opposition to registration under ss 42(b), 44, 58, 59 and 60

o    Monster Energy Company v Maple Mountain Group VID470/2023
Trade marks - appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks – opposition to registration under ss 42(b), 44, and 60

o    The Agency Group Australia v H.A.S. Real Estate [2023] FCAFC 203; 295 FCR 117
Trade marks - appeal – where primary judge found that the respondent had not infringed the second appellant’s registered trade marks – whether primary judge erred in finding that the word mark THE NORTH AGENCY used by the respondent was not deceptively similar to the second appellant’s registered trade mark

o    The Agency Group Australia v H.A.S. Real Estate [2023] FCA 482; 174 IPR 153
Trade marks - alleged infringement under s 120(1)  – registered composite and logo marks – whether words used in website URLs and social media handles used as trade marks – whether regard may be had to the context in which the allegedly infringing mark is used – whether descriptiveness of registered mark relevant to assessment of deceptive similarity – admissibility and relevance of evidence of trade usage of elements of a mark – whether defence under s 122(1)(b)  available

o    Ice Cream Group Australia v Australasian Food Group [2023] ATMO 8
Trade marks - oppositions to registration - s 41

o    O'Brien Boiler Services v O'Brien Glass Industries [2023] ATMO 6
Trade marks - oppositions to registration – ss 42(b), 43, 44, 59, 60

o    Directed Electronics OE v OE Solutions (No 8) [2022] FCA 1404
Fiduciary relationship – contractual relationship – South Korean manufacturer and supplier of audio-visual units – supply to Australian entity – on-supply by Australian entity to original equipment vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) – employees of Australian entity assisting South Korean manufacturer to set up Australian rival to supply OEMs – diversion of business opportunities – misappropriation of business providing in-vehicle electronic products – audio-visual units – telematic devices and telemetry services – breach of contract – exclusivity in distribution arrangements – breach of fiduciary duties – misuse of confidential information – infringement of copyright – former employees’ fiduciary and contractual obligations – breaches of ss 182 and 183 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – accessorial liability – knowing involvement in breach of statutory duties – claims under second limb of Barnes v Addy – dishonest conduct by former employees – participation of other entities – constructive knowledge – secret commissions

o    SurfStitch v One Day Bridal [2022] ATMO 120; 175 IPR 229
Trade marks - opposition to removal - ss 92(4) and 101

o    Surefoot IP Holdings Pty Ltd v All Footings Solutions Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 119
Patents – application to amend claim – whether clerical error or obvious mistake – discretion of the Court

o    Surefoot IP Holdings v All Footings Solutions [2021] FCA 1181
Practice and procedure – patents – position statement on infringement – adequacy of position statement – need to identify features of allegedly infringing products and corresponding integers of claims in patent

o    Ames Australasia v AgBoss Australia [2021] FCA 902; 162 IPR 400
Registered designs – application for leave to file and serve a further amended statement of cross claim – where the application to amend is opposed on the basis that there is no proper basis to plead prior use, and that particulars of the type articulated in r 34.46 of the Federal Court Rules, which relates to disputes of the validity of a patent, should be provided – in the circumstances, proper basis for pleading prior use – particulars of the type required under r 34.46 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in relation to patent claims not necessary – leave granted.

o    Aqua Smiles Dental [2019] ATMO 37
Trade marks - revocation of acceptance – ss 38 and 44

o    Carroll & Richardson-Flagworld v Momentum Industries VID260/2018
Copyright - infringement - Aboriginal flag design

o    Escape Room Games v Escape Room Geelong [2018] ATMO 93
Trade marks - oppositions to registration - s 62A

Ryan’s recent publications include:

o    Section 62(b) of the Trade Marks Act in Light of the Judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Caporaso: a Stand-Alone Ground with a Distinct Purpose, Intellectual Property Forum, issue 140, June 2025, pp 47-48.

Ryan is also a member of:

·         Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia (IPTA)

·         Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ)

·         Australian Group of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI Australia)

·         Victorian Bar Pro Bono Scheme

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards legislation.