Recent cases in which Ryan has acted as counsel include:

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

369 Labs Pty Ltd v BP plc [2024] ATMO 209
Trade marks - opposition to removal - ss 92(4) and 101

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)

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'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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Ryan’s recent publications include:

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)

·         Victorian Bar Pro Bono Scheme

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards legislation.