George and Australian Securities and Investments Commission

This matter concerned an objection to the registration of a business name by Ms George against a decision made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The dispute centred on whether the proposed business name was identical or nearly identical to an existing registered business name, contrary to the objects of the *Business Names Registration Act 2011* (Cth) and the *Business Names Registration (Availability of Names) Determination 2015* (Cth), which aim to avoid confusion and misleading consumers. The decision was heard by Professor Ann O'Connell, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine whether the proposed business name was identical or nearly identical to an existing registered business name, and consequently, whether ASIC's decision to register the name was correct in light of the statutory objects. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented regarding ASIC's processes for determining business name availability and the application of the relevant legislative provisions.

The Tribunal reasoned that the statutory scheme for business name registration, including its objects, and the operational practices of ASIC were central to the determination. Evidence from ASIC indicated that while programmed system rules applied to approximately 90% of applications, about 10% required review by an ASIC officer. The Tribunal found that the two names in question were nearly identical. Applying this finding to the statutory framework, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to register the disputed name should be set aside and substituted with a decision to refuse its registration.