Strategies and Lessons Learned from Recent Trademark and Counterfeiting Dispute Cases Regarding Temporary Injunctions

This article was originally published in English on March 5, 2026.

In December 2025, the Federal Court of Australia heard two applications for temporary (or preliminary) injunctions in brand disputes: Prezzee Pty Ltd v Epay Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1662 and Lindrum v T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1644 .

Why was the injunction granted in the Prezzee case but not in the Lindrum case? We will analyze the various factors that led to these two drastically different legal outcomes and explore what lessons we can learn from them.

Key Lessons Learned by Brand Owners in Trademark Disputes

• Owning a registered trademark offers significant practical advantages when seeking emergency relief;
• Before halting a product's launch or requiring a rebranding, courts will require conclusive evidence of the damage caused.
• Delaying the application could have fatal consequences.

Facts of the Case

Prezzee sues Epay

• Digital gift card company Prezzee owns several PREZZEE registered trademarks in Australia.
• Epay has registered and used the PREZZY trademark in New Zealand. In August 2025, Epay launched the "Giftzzy" gift card in Australia, which prominently features the words "Powered by Prezzy Card".
• Prezzee claims that Epay's actions constitute trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and violation of Australian Consumer Law, and has applied for multiple injunctions to prohibit Epay from using the word "PREZZY" and to require it to take all reasonable steps to withdraw and destroy products or marketing materials bearing the Prezzy mark from the market.
• Instruct them to stop selling these cards
• At the time of the hearing, approximately 47,000 Gifttzzy gift cards bearing the disputed wording were still in circulation at 1,800 retail stores.

Lindrum v T&P Lindrum

Dr. Janne Lindrum, grand-niece of renowned billiards player Walter Lindrum, has filed for an injunction to restrict T&P Lindrum from using the name "LINDRUM" in a commercial office building development project. The property was formerly known as the Lindrum Hotel. She argues that this constitutes impersonation, misleading, or deceptive conduct, as such use would mislead the public into believing the project is affiliated with or authorized by the Lindrum family or Dr. Lindrum himself.

Dr. Lindrum further argued that the name "Lindrum" enjoys a prestigious reputation in various fields, including real estate development, and that T&P Lindrum's use of the name would mislead the public and damage her business and reputation.

It is worth noting that both parties own registered trademarks, and the other party has raised objections to these trademarks.

Dr. Lindrum did not assert trademark infringement in this case. Evidence suggests that T&P Lindrum had been using the real estate development project's marketing materials for some time.

Legal principles

In Australia, the legal principles applicable to interim injunctions are fairly well-defined. Both judges employed the relevant "two-step test": (1) whether there are significant issues of contention requiring hearing (or whether there is a preliminary prima facie case), and (2) to facilitate an assessment of whether there is support for issuing an injunction.

Major disputed issues requiring adjudication (cases that have initially appeared to be established).

Requirements for "major disputed issues requiring adjudication":

• The applicant is not required to prove that their chances of winning the trial are greater than their chances of losing.
• However, the applicant must demonstrate that the likelihood of winning the case is high enough under certain circumstances to justify maintaining the status quo during the trial: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 [65].

In the Prezzee case, despite the seemingly reasonable controversy surrounding the scope of Prezzee's trademark registration, which meant that confusion issues might be taken into consideration, Prezzee was able to meet the threshold relatively easily.

In contrast, in the Lindrum case, since there was no trademark infringement claim, Dr. Lindrum needed to prove that the name LINDRUM was well-known, which was a necessary condition for proving the existence of a misleading statement.

The court held that although Dr. Lindrum had invested time, effort, and money in promoting the name LINDRUM, she had not provided any detailed evidence that the name was widely known, especially in the real estate development sector.

Convenience measurement

In the Prezzee case, the court placed great emphasis on the nature of the rights that needed protection, including the exclusive right to use the PREZZEE trademark.

Given that there is evidence that EPay made a commercial collaboration request to Prezzee, which was rejected by Prezzee, it is particularly important to note that Prezzee was unwilling to relinquish the exclusive rights to EPay.

While the court acknowledged that the injunction could damage EPay's reputation, it noted that there was no evidence that Gifttzzy was unable to distribute replacement gift cards in the short term. EPay argued that the impact of the injunction would be more severe due to the approaching Christmas season, but EPay did not disclose whether it continued to distribute gift cards after receiving Prezzee's notice of litigation and after the commencement of the litigation proceedings.

Therefore, the court held that the inconvenience, costs, and disruption to Epay's business caused by the recall of unsold cards did not exceed the damage to Prezzee's rights.

In the Lindrum case, the court held that the convenience measure did not support the issuance of a temporary injunction.

The court held that if Dr. Lindrum wins the trial, the damages would be sufficient relief, as she herself had stated that any losses could be compensated and calculated through reasonable licensing fees.

In addition, the temporary injunction will require T&P Lindrum to make costly and disruptive changes to its marketing materials (estimated to cost AU$400,000 and take three months to complete).

The court also emphasized that although Dr. Lindrum had been aware of T&P Lindrum's use of the name since 2023, he failed to file a provisional application and failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay.

How can we provide assistance?

Recent preliminary injunction rulings once again demonstrate that the outcome of trademark disputes is often determined early on—usually even before the case enters the trial stage.

Brand owners need to pay close attention to the actual situation of trademark enforcement, including the impact of delays, the quality of required evidence, and the potential business consequences of seeking emergency relief.

The team at the law firm Spruson & Ferguson frequently advises brand owners on trademark protection and dispute strategies, including when and how to apply for a preliminary injunction.

We work closely with our clients to assess risks, prepare evidence, and develop practical litigation strategies that balance legal and commercial interests.

Through close collaboration with our team of trademark agents, we ensure that our clients' registration strategies, trademark protection plans, and litigation procedures are aligned, thus placing brand owners in the best possible position when court intervention is required.

If you wish to explore various options regarding infringement issues, brand launches, or legal action, it is crucial to consult as early as possible.

To discuss your proposal, please contact the author of this article or your contact at Spruce & Ferguson.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.