⚠️ Important Disclaimer
The emails and trademark attempt described below were made under the name of “315 Legal.” The actual law firm 315 Legal, run by Ms. Hafoka, has firmly denied any involvement, and the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner has accepted that denial. Ms. Hafoka reports that her firm’s name and identity were used fraudulently. This post is about the apparent misuse of that name in a wider scam affecting small businesses - it is NOT a criticism of 315Legal in ANY WAY. They have acted with integrity and are blameless.
Have you received an email that feels like a trademark scam Australia? You're not imagining it. This post shares our firsthand experience with a calculated attempt to hijack our business name and trademark it before we could act.
What follows is a detailed, transparent account of a real attempt to claim our name — Sydney Business Web — using what IP Australia later confirmed as a textbook example of a known Australian trademark scam. We've included the original emails, our replies, steps we took to secure our trademark, and warnings for others facing similar threats.
Important: We also share how one piece of early advice from ChatGPT turned out to be wrong, nearly exposing us to real risk — and what we did to correct it. Transparency is everything, especially when exposing tactics like this.
📩 Email 1: The Approach
From: Peter Mackenzie Caporn
Organisation: 315 Legal
Subject: Trademark Review – “Sydney Business Web”
We also contacted 315 Legal directly by phone and verified that Peter Mackenzie Caporn is affiliated with the firm. This post refers to the content and conduct of the emails we received, and not to the wider operations or staff of the firm.
"I hope this message finds you well.
I am reaching out on behalf of the Trademark department at 315 Legal regarding a matter currently under preliminary review with IP Australia...
We are currently evaluating a trademark application for the brand name “Sydney Business Web” in Australia. If you have been using this name in connection with goods or services in Australia, or if you believe you may have legal or commercial rights to it, we invite you to respond...
Under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), Australia operates on a first-to-file basis. However, prior use in trade or commerce may give rise to common law rights...
This notice serves as an opportunity to ensure that any existing commercial interest or prior use... is acknowledged and considered.
🎯 Our Immediate Reaction
We had been trading under “Sydney Business Web” for years. We own the domain, hold an ABN, have operated continuously, and have public proof of use. The idea that someone else was attempting to register our brand under their name — especially via a third-party firm — was both alarming and infuriating.
🤖 ChatGPT's Role at This Point
We asked ChatGPT for initial advice. It correctly identified the email as a likely fishing expedition and helped us write a firm, professional response asserting our rights. So far, so good.
📨 Our Response
Dear Mr Caporn,
Thank you for your message.
Sydney Business Web has been operating continuously under this name in Australia for several years, with an active ABN, registered domain, and commercial activity. We assert prior use and existing common law rights to the name and would oppose any attempt to register it by another party.
Please consider this a formal notification of our interest and intent to challenge any conflicting application.
Regards,
Keith Rowley
Sydney Business Web
✅ Action Taken: Checking on Trademark Scam Australia laws and entities
- Reviewed IP Australia’s public guidance on trademark law and scam warnings.
- Prepared to lodge our own formal trademark application.
- Continued correspondence with the sender, which we’ll document in full below.
📩 Email 2: The Justification
I understand your position and appreciate the time you've taken to consider this matter.
However, after reviewing the records, it appears that while your business name may be registered with the state or ASIC, it is not currently registered as a trademark with IP Australia.
Under Australian trademark law, if a name is not officially registered as a trademark, it is generally considered open for registration by any individual or business nationwide — regardless of how long it has been in commercial use.
If another party successfully registers the trademark before you do, they may obtain exclusive rights to the name...
That said, because you've been using this name prior to the current applicant, you are in a strong legal position to secure the trademark and protect your rights. We would be happy to assist you with the registration process.
However, should you decide not to proceed, we will need to move forward with the applicant’s request.
⚖️ Yes, Registering Someone Else’s Business Name Is Technically Legal in Australia
This was the point at which the truth became uncomfortably clear. Under Australia’s first-to-file trademark system, it is in fact legally permissible for someone else to apply to register your business name — even if you've been using it for years — as long as you haven’t already filed a trademark yourself.
That doesn’t make it honourable. Or ethical. Or safe from challenge. But it is legal.
IP Australia confirms this on their site. Prior use gives you legal standing to oppose or cancel such a trademark, but only if you take action. If you don’t, the applicant may gain exclusive rights — even to your own brand name.
🔄 Our Position — And AI's Continued Input
At this point, we again consulted ChatGPT. It correctly advised us to file a formal application immediately and to respond clearly to any further contact asserting our rights. However — and this will matter later — we were mistakenly advised to choose IP Australia’s “TM Headstart” process, which we believed would instantly protect us. That turned out to be a critical misstep. We’ll come back to that.
📨 Our Reply
Dear Mr Caporn,
Thank you for your follow-up.
Sydney Business Web is an active and established business with prior commercial use of the name, which we will defend. We will be proceeding with trademark registration through IP Australia and will oppose any competing application based on our longstanding use and rights.
Please advise your client accordingly.
Regards,
Keith Rowley
Sydney Business Web
✅ Action Taken on Trademark Scam Australia
- We prepared to file our trademark application through IP Australia.
- We continued documenting every email and response.
- We became aware of the legal fine print behind “first to file” — and the danger it presents to small businesses not actively trademarked.
📩 Email 3: “Only We Are Authorised”
Please note that as of now, no application has been filed on your behalf, nor can an application be processed externally at this stage — only we are authorised to proceed with filing for this specific name.
Kindly let us know your decision at your earliest convenience so we can proceed accordingly.
🚨 The Big Red Flag
This single sentence — “only we are authorised to proceed with filing for this specific name” — was the most serious red flag so far. According to the expert we spoke to at IP Australia, this statement is legally false. No law firm, registrar, or third party can hold exclusive filing rights to a name unless they already have a trademark filed or written authorisation from the brand owner.
This was the moment we realised we weren’t just dealing with opportunism. We were being manipulated. And the tactics used were nearly identical to those described in IP Australia's own public scam alerts.
🤖 AI’s Advice: Correct Direction, Wrong Mechanism
We again consulted ChatGPT, which advised us to file our own application and respond assertively. This was strategically sound. However — and this is where transparency matters — it recommended using IP Australia’s “TM Headstart” service. We believed, incorrectly, that this would secure our legal position immediately. In fact, it did not.
TM Headstart is a pre-assessment only. It does not formally lodge your trademark until after the review is complete and a second fee is paid — typically five business days later. During that window, another party can still file a standard application and potentially leapfrog you.
📨 Our Response
Dear Mr Caporn,
I have now lodged a formal trademark application for “Sydney Business Web” with IP Australia, covering relevant classes and visual branding.
Any attempt to register a conflicting mark will be opposed on the basis of prior commercial use and now-established priority.
This correspondence is now concluded.
Regards,
Keith Rowley
Sydney Business Web
✅ Action Taken
- We submitted our application via TM Headstart — unaware it was not yet a binding filing.
- We made a further call to IP Australia to confirm our position.
- We prepared for the possibility that the other party might still attempt to file during the review window.
📞 The Call That Changed Everything
After submitting our application through TM Headstart, we contacted IP Australia for clarification — and it was a good thing we did.
❗ TM Headstart Is Not a Filing — Yet
The IP Australia representative explained that TM Headstart is a two-part process. While we had submitted Part 1 and paid $400, we would not receive an official filing date — the date that locks in legal priority — until after the assessment is returned, accepted, and the second payment is made. That process can take up to 5 business days.
In plain English: our business name was still vulnerable. Anyone could submit a standard trademark application during that time and possibly leapfrog us in the queue.
🤖 Where the AI Got It Wrong
ChatGPT had recommended TM Headstart as the best way to move quickly. That turned out to be a mistake. It did not provide the instant legal filing protection we thought it would. This post documents that error clearly so that others don’t make the same assumption.
🧠 Our Decision: Watch and Wait
After speaking with a second IP Australia representative, we learned that if another application was submitted in the meantime, we would be notified during examination — likely via a Section 44 Notice — and we would have the opportunity to oppose based on prior use. We accepted that risk and decided to let the Headstart process play out.
📂 Why We Were Still Confident
- We had operated under the business name “Sydney Business Web” for more than 6 years.
- We held the domain, ABN, and published commercial use.
- We had clear documentary evidence — including emails from the sender — acknowledging our prior rights.
- We have tax records for the life of the business
In short: we might have been vulnerable for a few days, but we were still on strong legal ground.
📩 Email 4: The Walk‑Back
We would like to clarify that the other applicant is not our client. Their application for the name “Sydney Business Web” was submitted to us independently, as they are seeking to register it as a trademark.
However, based on our research, it is clear that your business has been using this name for a considerable period. In light of this, we have placed the other applicant’s submission on hold and are informing you of the situation as a courtesy.
The name “Sydney Business Web” is currently available for trademark registration. If you are interested, we would be happy to assist you with the trademark registration process. Once your application is lodged, we will officially halt any conflicting application.
Please note that as of now, no application has been filed on your behalf, nor can an application be processed externally at this stage — only we are authorised to proceed with filing for this specific name.
🎭 The Tone Shift
At this stage, the communication style changed. Gone was the confident, authoritative tone from earlier messages. The sender now claimed they were not acting on behalf of any client, but instead were contacted by a third party who “independently” sought to trademark our business name. That third party’s application, they said, was “on hold.”
They reiterated the earlier misleading statement that they were “authorised” to file the name, despite now acknowledging they had no actual authority from us or any existing client. It was a confusing — and clearly strategic — pivot.
🧠 Our Take
It’s hard not to view this as an attempt to save face. Whether they had an actual client or were attempting to create one through pressure tactics, the reversal was telling. With our TM Headstart submission in progress and our intent made clear, the leverage they had hoped to create was slipping away.
📨 Our Final Response
Dear Mr Caporn,
Thank you for your clarification.
We have now formally lodged our trademark application for “Sydney Business Web” directly with IP Australia, including both the name and logo.
We would appreciate clarification on your statement that “only we are authorised to proceed with filing for this specific name.” On what basis is that claim made?
Regards,
Keith Rowley
Sydney Business Web
✅ Action Taken
- We requested formal clarification of their legal position.
- We flagged the inconsistency in their messaging.
- We kept all communications on record, anticipating a possible opposition process or public exposure (i.e. this post).
📩 Email 5: The Veiled Threat
If you intend to proceed with this matter through another party, we will move forward with the trademark registration of “Sydney Business Web” on behalf of the other applicant. They are prepared to proceed with the business under this name and have engaged us accordingly.
We extended this opportunity to you first out of professional courtesy, given your prior use of the name. However, if you choose not to pursue this through us, we will proceed with the application for the other party.
Kindly confirm how you wish to proceed.
💣 The Thinly Veiled Ultimatum
Despite earlier claiming that no client was involved, this final email revealed their true position: they were indeed acting for someone — and were now threatening to proceed with that party’s application if we didn’t engage their firm. This was a textbook example of coercive pressure, dressed up as “professional courtesy.”
It also contradicted their earlier statement that only they were “authorised” to file the name — and raised serious ethical questions about their conduct.
📜 Legal Reality
Yes — under Australian law, **filing a trademark for a name already in commercial use by someone else is legal** if the name isn’t already registered as a trademark. But that doesn’t shield anyone from challenge, especially when:
- There is long-standing, documented prior use.
- There’s clear intent to mislead or pressure the prior user into giving up the name or hiring the filer.
- There’s written evidence — like the emails shown above — that acknowledge your ownership and still attempt to circumvent it.
Our prior use, domain, branding, and published history all placed us in a strong legal position to oppose or cancel any later-filed trademark. And we were ready to do so.
📨 Our Final Reply
Dear Mr Caporn,
As previously stated, a formal trademark application for “Sydney Business Web” has been submitted directly to IP Australia, under my name and authority.
Your client is free to proceed as they see fit. However, any attempt to register a conflicting mark will be met with formal opposition and may raise questions regarding your conduct in this matter.
This correspondence is now concluded.
Regards,
Keith Rowley
Sydney Business Web
✅ Final Outcome
- No further emails were received.
- We proceeded with our trademark application, watched closely for conflicts, and prepared this post to warn others.
- We were later informed by IP Australia that this type of approach matches known scam formats and is regularly reported by small businesses across Australia.
What You Should Do If This Happens to You
If you receive a legal-looking email claiming someone is applying to trademark your business name, take it seriously — but don’t panic.
✅ Steps to Take Immediately
- Call IP Australia — they will tell you whether an application has actually been filed, and guide you through next steps.
- Do not respond or engage with the sender until you verify everything yourself.
- File your own trademark application as soon as possible. Use the standard method unless you have time for TM Headstart and know what you're doing.
- Document everything — emails, website use, domain registration, invoices, ads — to prove prior use if needed.
- Report the sender to IP Australia and (if advised) the Federal Police if the conduct appears misleading or coercive.
⚠️ Business Owners: Register Your Trademark Now
This is the single biggest takeaway:
If you operate a business in Australia and your name is not trademarked, you are exposed.
Someone else can register it legally under the first-to-file system — even if you’ve used it for years — and you will be the one forced to fight to keep your own brand. Don’t let it come to that.
Register your business name as a trademark. Not later. Now.
🧠 Learn From Our Mistakes — and Our Wins
We’ve documented this story for transparency, for accountability, and to make sure others don’t fall into the same trap. We made some good decisions and one serious early error — and we want other business owners to have a clearer path than we did.
If this post helped you — or if you’ve received a similar email — get in touch or share it. Let’s make sure this kind of tactic doesn’t work on anyone else.
Note: We also reported the matter to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) in New South Wales. This body oversees legal practitioner conduct, and we felt it was necessary to report what appeared to be a misleading use of legal authority in an attempt to pressure us into using their services. The report included full copies of the emails and supporting evidence. Even if no formal action is taken immediately, this ensures a record exists — and it may help protect others in future.
Closure
We received the communications below from OLSC. They confirm that thye ACTUAL company 315 Legal had nothing to do with this horrible scam. I personally spoke with Ms. Hafoka, who is a very decent person and a reputable lawyer.
The 315legal website has been shut down and the domaion has been suspended.
And (no quite) finally:
We Wrote to Government Minister Tim Ayres
Dear Senator Ayres,
My name is Keith Rowley, and I run a small but resilient web and SEO agency called Sydney Business Web. We’ve operated continuously since 2019, with a registered domain (https://sydneybusinessweb.com.au), an active Google Business Profile, and a strong presence across the web. We serve real clients, deliver real work, and uphold real values.
In July 2025, I received an unsolicited—and frankly disturbing—email from a registered law firm. The message informed me that a “client” intended to file a trademark application for the name Sydney Business Web.
Whether or not a formal trademark application had actually been submitted was unclear at the time. What was clear, however, was the implied threat of doing so.
There was no evidence of an ABN, trading history, or public presence under the name. This was not a coincidence. It was not parallel development. It was a hijacking attempt.
We had to act fast: filing our own application, reporting the incident to IP Australia, Scamwatch, and the OLSC, and gathering a body of evidence to prove what anyone with a browser could already see — we were the rightful owners of our brand — visible, traceable, taxpaying, and trading in good faith.
The Core Problem
Australia’s trademark law operates on a “first to file” principle. Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 provides a prior-use defence, but it’s toothless unless you’re dragged into court. And even then, platforms like Google or Meta often ignore that defence entirely, enforcing take-downs based solely on trademark registration — not on truth, ethics, or evidence.
In short: we can prove use, we can prove ownership, we can prove public association — but we still stand at risk because someone else filled out a form first.
Why This Matters
Small businesses like mine make up the lifeblood of the Australian economy. We don’t have in-house legal teams or thousands of dollars to burn on IP battles. We operate on trust, trade, and consistency. When the law makes it easy for bad actors to weaponise trademarks, it creates a chilling environment — one where good operators can be threatened, silenced, or erased.
A Call for Reform
I urge you, as Minister for Industry and Innovation, to champion changes that restore sanity and fairness to our trademark system. Specifically:
- Introduce red flags for bad faith filings, especially when a matching domain or ABN already exists.
- Provide fast-track challenges for longstanding businesses facing hijack attempts.
- Push digital platforms to recognise prior-use evidence, not just registration numbers.
This is a serious issue, and one that deserves urgent attention. I am not the only one this has happened to — and I won’t be the last unless something changes.
Thank you sincerely for your time.
In the meantime, I will post this letter to our website for public information - I hope you don't mind.
Sincerely,
Keith Rowley
Sydney Business Web
17 Blakewell Road
Thornton, NSW 2322
[email protected]
0427 847 653
30th July 2025
And Got A Reply: A Final Word from Our Minister Tim Ayres
Despite what many websites and lawyers claim, Australia is not a strict “first-to-file” country for trademarks. The Minister for Industry and Science confirms that prior commercial use still matters. This means if someone else used the trademark name in good faith before it was filed, they may still have legal rights — and a later filing can be challenged or rejected on that basis.
Bottom line: Filing first gives you an advantage — but it doesn’t override evidence of earlier, legitimate use.
Is “First to File” Real in Australia? Not Exactly according to the Minister
Trademark Accepted 8th August
We nare now on the home-run for securing our trademark and IP rights. This is the online status
...and this is opur official notification from IP Australia:
UPDATE - Your trade mark application has been accepted
On 30th December we received the following notification from IPAUSTRALIA. This means we are now beginning the 2 month period for any oppositio n to be registered. With a 6 year track record, ABN and tax registration. we don't expect any issues. In thje meantime we have adopted the 'TM' indicator on our logo. Once registered, this will become the ® indicator meaning our trademark is now fully enforced.
