06 February 2026
A $30,000 Mistake in Trade Mark Law Shows Why Professional Representation Matters
In an age where do-it-yourself solutions are everywhere—from home renovations to tax returns—it's tempting to think legal matters can be handled the same way. A recent Federal Court of Australia decision, Quach v Registrar of Trade Marks (No 2) [2026] FCA 57, provides a sobering reminder that when it comes to intellectual property law, self-representation can be a very expensive mistake.
The Case at a Glance
Dr Michael Quach attempted to appeal a trade mark registration decision without legal representation. His company, QE Family Pty Ltd, had opposed the registration of the “Byron Bay Beachfront Apartments” trade mark by an owners corporation. When the opposition failed before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Dr Quach—acting personally—sought to appeal the decision.
The result? His application was dismissed, he was ordered to pay the other side’s costs, and Justice Derrington delivered a judgment that serves as a cautionary tale for anyone considering self-representation in IP matters.
What Went Wrong? A Catalogue of Costly Errors
1. Missing the Deadline
Despite receiving a letter clearly stating he had 21 days to appeal, Dr Quach filed his application 27 days after the decision—six days late. His excuse? He claimed he was “unaware” of the deadline, despite the decision letter explicitly stating the timeframe.
The court found this explanation particularly weak given that Dr Quach was described as “a familiar self-represented litigant in this and other courts” who had been involved in numerous pieces of litigation over an extended period.
2. Fundamental Misunderstanding of Court Rules
Dr Quach argued that the 21-day appeal deadline didn’t apply to trade mark cases because the Federal Court Rules referred to appeals from a “Commissioner”, and he believed this term didn’t include the Registrar of Trade Marks.
This interpretation was comprehensively rejected. As Justice Derrington explained, the Rules specifically define “Commissioner” to include the Registrar of Trade Marks for procedural purposes. It was a basic misreading of the legislation that any trade mark lawyer would have immediately identified.
3. The Fatal Flaw: No Standing to Appeal
Perhaps the most devastating error was that Dr Quach brought the application in his personal name. However, it was his company, QE Family Pty Ltd—not him personally—that had opposed the trade mark registration.
Under section 56 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), only an “opponent” can appeal a Registrar’s decision. QE Family was the opponent. Dr Quach was not. This meant Dr Quach had no legal standing to bring the appeal at all.
When this was pointed out, Dr Quach tried to argue that as director and shareholder of QE Family, he had a “sufficient interest” to pursue the matter. The court flatly rejected this, noting the fundamental legal principle that a company is a separate legal entity from its directors and shareholders.
Justice Derrington observed that Dr Quach seemed reluctant to make QE Family a party to the proceedings, possibly to shield the company from potential costs orders—a strategy that ultimately backfired entirely.
4. Procedural Ambush Tactics
At the hearing, Dr Quach suddenly challenged whether the opposing representative, Mr Cholakos, had authority to appear for the owners corporation. This issue had never been raised before—not in written submissions, not in prior proceedings, not at any earlier stage.
Justice Derrington described this as “a belated issue raised in an ambush-style attempt to derail the matter.” The judge allowed Mr Cholakos to provide oral evidence and documentation of his authority, which was readily established.
5. Failure to Comply with Procedural Orders
Dr Quach was ordered to file written submissions 14 days before the hearing. He failed to do so, eventually filing a one-page document on the day of the hearing that provided little detail about his arguments.
This failure prejudiced the other side, who had to prepare their case without knowing what arguments they would face.
The Court’s Perspective: Balancing Access to Justice with Protection from Abuse
Justice Derrington’s reasons contain an important commentary on the limits of judicial tolerance for self-represented litigants. His Honour acknowledged that courts have “hitherto shown an almost inexhaustible tolerance for litigants, and in particular litigants in person, in allowing the agitation of claims and causes before them.”
However, he emphasised that this tolerance has limits, particularly citing the High Court’s decision in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175. The courts must consider:
-
Limited judicial resources: Court time is finite and becoming scarcer
-
Prejudice to respondents: Defending meritless litigation causes “enormous damage” through “prolonged inconvenience, expense, and delay”
-
Public confidence: Courts must not be seen to “accede to applications made without adequate explanation or justification”
The judge noted that the owners corporation faced the real risk of being embroiled in “protracted and lengthy litigation, much of which… would be misdirected.”
The Cost Consequences
Dr Quach argued he shouldn’t have to pay costs because the owners corporation was also self-represented and hadn’t incurred legal fees. The court rejected this argument.
While self-represented parties cannot charge for their own time, they can recover reasonable disbursements such as filing fees, photocopying costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses. These costs can quickly add up in Federal Court proceedings.
More significantly, the costs order creates a public record of the failed application, and the decision itself may have reputational consequences for Dr Quach in any future litigation.
Key Takeaways for Business Owners and Legal Professionals
For Business Owners:
-
Trade mark law is technical: The Trade Marks Act and associated regulations contain numerous procedural requirements and technical definitions. Missing even one can be fatal to your case.
-
Corporate structure matters: Understanding the distinction between personal and corporate capacity is fundamental. This isn’t just about limiting liability—it determines whether you have standing to bring proceedings at all.
-
Deadlines are strict: Appeals and time-sensitive applications have firm deadlines. “Not reading the letter” or being “flustered” by the rules is not an acceptable excuse.
-
False economies: Saving on legal fees upfront can result in far greater costs if your case is dismissed and you’re ordered to pay the other side’s costs.
-
Written submissions matter: Modern litigation relies heavily on written submissions filed in advance. Last-minute arguments and ambush tactics are unlikely to succeed and may damage your credibility with the court.
For Legal Professionals:
-
Clear communication is crucial: When advising clients about appeal rights, ensure they understand not just the deadline but also who has standing to appeal and in what capacity.
-
Corporate governance in IP matters: When companies oppose trade mark registrations or pursue other IP rights, ensure proper corporate authorisation and that the right entity is named as the party.
-
Managing self-represented opponents: Be prepared for procedural irregularities, late submissions, and last-minute objections. Maintain meticulous records of compliance with court orders.
-
The changing judicial landscape: Courts are becoming less tolerant of unmeritorious litigation, even from self-represented parties. This may affect strategic decisions about costs applications.
The Broader Implications
This decision reflects a subtle but important shift in how Australian courts approach self-represented litigants. While access to justice remains paramount, courts are increasingly willing to protect respondents from what Justice Derrington called “meritless (or near-meritless) claims.”
The decision also highlights the particular complexities of intellectual property law. Unlike many areas of commercial law where the issues may be relatively straightforward, trade mark law involves:
-
Specialised statutory regimes with specific procedural requirements
-
Technical definitions that may differ from ordinary meaning
-
Strict time limits with limited scope for extension
-
Standing requirements that depend on understanding corporate law principles
-
Interplay between multiple statutes and regulations
Conclusion: When Professional Help Is Non-Negotiable
There’s a reason trade mark attorneys and IP lawyers spend years developing their expertise. The law in this area is not intuitive, and the consequences of getting it wrong can be severe.
Dr Quach’s experience demonstrates that even someone familiar with court processes—someone described by the Federal Court as a “familiar self-represented litigant”—can make fundamental errors that doom their case from the start.
For business owners considering trade mark registration, opposition, or enforcement, the message is clear: this is not an area for do-it-yourself approaches. The cost of proper legal advice at the outset is invariably less than the cost of rectifying mistakes—or defending a costs order—later.
As Justice Derrington’s decision makes clear, the courts expect parties to understand and comply with procedural requirements. Ignorance of the rules, even for self-represented litigants, is no longer an acceptable excuse.
The trade mark you’re trying to protect may be valuable to your business. Ensure your legal strategy is equally robust by engaging professionals who understand the technical complexities of IP law.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific advice about trade mark matters, consult a qualified intellectual property lawyer.
