Protection of Word "Anzac" Regulations

The Regulations operate by three interlocking concepts: a substantive prohibition on unauthorised use, a system of administrative gatekeeping through registrars and State registration officers, and a Ministerial discretion that authorises exceptions and instructs registrars.

Substantive prohibition. The core substantive rule is that the word “Anzac” and words resembling it cannot be assumed or used in specified commercial, naming and entertainment contexts without Ministerial authority (r 2(1); r 3(1)). The prohibited contexts are broad and expressed in the negative: trade, business, calling or profession; entertainments; lotteries and art unions; the naming,entirely or in part,of private residences, boats, vehicles, charitable or other institutions, and any building in connection therewith (r 2(1)). The street/park naming rule repeats the prohibition in the public geography context and conditions it on Ministerial approval (r 3(1)).

Evidential burden. The Regulations shift the evidential burden to the person accused to establish they have the Minister’s authority for a use of the word (r 2(1)). That affects procedural posture in any enforcement or challenge where the accused wishes to rely on purported authorisation.

Deeming and scope. The Regulations include deeming language to clarify what counts as use in connexion with trade, business or profession: a word applied to goods manufactured, produced, sold or offered for sale (whether as a trade mark or otherwise) and use as the name or part of the name of any firm or company registered in Australia are treated as uses in connexion with trade or business (r 2(2)(a)-(b)). That deeming extends the prohibition to ordinary trade‑mark style uses and to company names, irrespective of other factual connections.

Administrative enforcement through registrars and State registration officers. The Regulations mandate that the Registrar of Trade Marks refuse registrations of any word whose assumption or use is prohibited by r 2(1). The Registrar must cancel existing registrations of such words unless directed otherwise by the Minister, and refuse to act on applications for their use (r 2(3)(a)-(b)). The Registrar of Designs has parallel obligations (r 2(4)(a)-(b)). For firms and companies registered under State Acts, the Registrar‑General or other proper State officer may permit amendment of firm or company names to remove the prohibited word, or cancel registration if the firm or company refuses or fails to apply within a reasonable period for the amendment (r 2(5)(a)-(b)). These provisions convert the substantive prohibition into practical administrative blocks and cancellation powers across the registration ecosystem.

Ministerial discretion. The Minister is the gatekeeper. Uses otherwise prohibited are lawful only “with the authority of the Minister” (r 2(1)); approval of the Minister is required for use in street, road or park names (r 3(1)). The registrars’ obligations include a qualification,“unless otherwise directed by the Minister” (r 2(3)(b); r 2(4)(b)),which gives the Minister power to instruct cancellation or non‑cancellation and thus to subordinate registrar decisions to Ministerial direction.

Carve‑outs and definitions. A notable carve‑out narrows the prohibition in one context: r 2(1A) excludes the assumption or use of the words “Anzac Day” in connection with an entertainment held on 25 April, or on consecutive days including that day, where those words are not used to describe or designate single events within an entertainment consisting of two or more events. The interpretation provision (r 1A) defines “Entertainment” broadly to include fundraising exhibitions, performances, lectures, amusements, games, sports and social gatherings. The regulations do not define “resembling”, “in connexion with” beyond the deeming clauses, or “reasonable period” for the company‑name amendment power.

Citation and statutory basis. The Regulations are to be cited as the Protection of Word ‘Anzac’ Regulations (r 1). They were made under the War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920, as shown at the head of the compilation.

The Regulations impose obligations and limits on multiple classes of private and public actors by textual design. They expressly affect:

• Individuals and businesses seeking to use “Anzac” or resembling words in trade, business, calling or profession. The prohibition in r 2(1) applies to “any person”, which, read with the deeming provisions in r 2(2), captures businesses that apply the word to goods, trade marks, or as part of a firm or company name. The Registrar of Trade Marks and the Registrar of Designs are required to refuse or cancel registrations that would enable such commercial use (r 2(3)-(4)).

• Firms and companies registered in Australia. r 2(2)(b) deems the use of “Anzac” as the name or part of the name of any firm or company registered in Australia to be use in connexion with a trade, business, calling or profession, and r 2(5) gives the Registrar‑General the power to permit name amendments or to cancel registration where a firm or company refuses to apply to amend its name.

• Owners and occupiers of private residences, boats, vehicles, charitable or other institutions and buildings. r 2(1) specifically includes the use of “Anzac” as the name or part of the name of any private residence, boat, vehicle or charitable or other institution, or any building in connexion therewith. Those who would name such property need Ministerial authority or risk being subject to the prohibition and potential administrative action through registration channels.

• Event organisers and entertainers. The Regulations reach entertainment uses (r 1A; r 2(1)). Organisers who schedule entertainments, lotteries, art unions or fundraising events and plan to employ the word “Anzac” must either secure Ministerial authority or adopt the constrained exemption for “Anzac Day” uses set out in r 2(1A). The definition of “Entertainment” in r 1A includes events held or conducted for raising money, which widens the net to many charitable fundraising activities.

• Local and State naming authorities and persons proposing street, road or park names. r 3(1) requires Ministerial approval for naming streets, roads or parks with “Anzac” or resembling words. The provision directly regulates those who propose or approve naming in public spaces, and r 3(2) supplies two exceptions that limit that reach to memorialised locations or pre‑existing names at commencement.

• Registration and administrative officers. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Registrar of Designs, and the Registrar‑General or State officers charged with firm and company registration are operationally affected. They have positive duties to refuse, cancel or permit amendments (r 2(3)-(5)). Those duties make these public officers the instrument of enforcement and compliance, and their actions will directly alter registration and commercial opportunities.

• The Minister. While not a private entity affected in the conventional sense, the Minister is the decision point for authorisations and has the power to direct registrars under r 2(3)(b) and r 2(4)(b). The Minister’s choices determine who is permitted to use the word, and registrars are required to act unless otherwise directed.

The Regulations do not identify specific penalties or criminal sanctions within the text presented. They rely heavily on administrative controls through registration systems and a Ministerial authorisation mechanism. The immediate compliance cost is therefore borne by private parties seeking to use the word commercially or in public naming, including businesses that may need to rebrand, firms or companies that may need to amend names, event organisers whose planned uses fall outside the Anzac Day entertainment carve‑out, and local authorities or proponents seeking to name streets, roads or parks.

The Regulations impose a set of duties on individuals, registrars and registration officers, while creating corresponding rights primarily vested in the Minister.

Key duties on private persons

• Do not assume or use “Anzac” or resembling words in specified contexts without Ministerial authority (r 2(1)). The contexts listed are trade, business, calling or profession; entertainment; lottery or art union; as name or part of name of private residence, boat, vehicle, charitable or other institution, or any building in connexion therewith.

• If relying on the Minister’s authority to justify use, the individual or entity must prove that authority, because “proof whereof shall lie upon the person accused” (r 2(1)).

Key duties on registrars and registration officers

• Registrar of Trade Marks: must refuse registration of a trade mark where the word’s assumption or use is prohibited under r 2(1) (r 2(3)(a)). The Registrar must cancel any existing registration of such a word unless directed otherwise by the Minister, and must refuse to take any step or further step in connexion with any application for the use of such a word as a trade mark (r 2(3)(b)).

• Registrar of Designs: parallel duties, including refusal to register a design or mark that is prohibited by r 2(1) (r 2(4)(a)); cancellation of existing registrations unless the Minister directs otherwise; and refusal to take further steps on applications for their use (r 2(4)(b)).

• Registrar‑General or State registration officer: may permit a firm or company to amend its registered name to omit the prohibited word, and, if the firm or company desires, to substitute another word or words. The officer may cancel registration of any firm or company that refuses or fails to apply within a reasonable period for amendment of its name (r 2(5)(a)-(b)). The power is framed permissively for the officer , “may permit” , but it authorises administrative action to implement the substantive prohibition.

Key duties on naming authorities and private namers

• Persons naming streets, roads or parks must not use “Anzac” or resembling words without the Minister’s approval (r 3(1)). Two exceptions exist under r 3(2): the presence of a nearby public memorial relating to either the 1914 or 1939 wars; and pre‑existing names that contained “Anzac” at the commencement of the regulation.

Rights and Ministerial powers

• The Minister’s authority is central. Only with the Minister’s authority may a person assume or use the word within the prohibited contexts (r 2(1)). The Minister may approve street or park names under r 3(1). The registrars’ mandatory cancellation obligations contain the qualification “unless otherwise directed by the Minister” (r 2(3)(b); r 2(4)(b)), which operationally gives the Minister the right to permit or preserve registrations and to direct registrars in particular cases.

• The Regulations do not expressly confer private rights of action or prescribe civil remedies for misuse. The rights conferred are administrative: the ability to seek and obtain Ministerial authority, and the ability for registrars to amend or cancel registrations in accordance with the Regulations and Ministerial instructions.

Interpretive and administrative uncertainties that affect duties and rights

• “Resembling” the word “Anzac” is not defined in the Regulations. That term will be a key interpretive issue in determining whether a particular variant or close form falls within the prohibition (r 2(1); r 3(1)).

• “In connexion with” and the meaning of a use being “in connexion with” a trade or business are partly clarified by r 2(2), which deems a word applied to goods or used as part of a firm or company name to be use in connexion with trade, business or profession. Other factual uses will require interpretation.

• The Registrar‑General’s power to cancel a firm or company that “refuses or fails to apply within a reasonable period for the amendment of its name” (r 2(5)(b)) introduces the undefined concept of a “reasonable period,” leaving timing and administrative discretion to be exercised by the relevant registration officer.

• The Regulations place proof of Ministerial authority on the accused (r 2(1)). That procedural allocation of evidential burden affects how duties are met in enforcement encounters.

The Regulations establish a mixed enforcement architecture that is predominantly administrative, and they do not, within the text provided, specify criminal penalties or fines for breach.

Administrative enforcement via registration systems

• Trade marks and designs: The Regulations require the Registrar of Trade Marks to refuse to register any word the assumption or use of which is prohibited under r 2(1) (r 2(3)(a)). The Registrar is also required, unless the Minister directs otherwise, to cancel any existing registration of such a word and to refuse to take any step or further step in relation to any application for the use of such a word as a trade mark (r 2(3)(b)). The Registrar of Designs is subject to the same rules with respect to designs or marks (r 2(4)(a)-(b)). These provisions make refusal and cancellation the primary administrative tools to prevent and remedy unauthorised commercial use in the intellectual property system.

• Firms and companies: The Registrar‑General or State registration officer may permit firms or companies to amend their names to omit a prohibited word, or may cancel registration of a firm or company that refuses or fails to apply within a reasonable period for amendment (r 2(5)(a)-(b)). This grants State registration systems an enforcement role over existing legal entities.

Ministerial control of enforcement outcomes

• The registrars’ cancellation obligations are subject to the residual authority of the Minister, who may direct otherwise (r 2(3)(b); r 2(4)(b)). That qualification centralises enforcement discretion in the Minister’s hands, because a Ministerial direction can prevent cancellation or require different treatment. The Minister also approves street, road and park names (r 3(1)), and authorisation from the Minister prevents the application of the substantive prohibitions (r 2(1)).

Burden of proof and practical enforcement

• The Regulations place proof of Ministerial authority on the person accused (r 2(1)). That evidential burden operates as a practical enforcement mechanism: an accused user must demonstrate an authorisation when challenged; the absence of such proof will leave the user exposed to registrars’ refusal or cancellation actions and to any administrative consequences that flow from non‑registration or cancelled registration.

Absence of express penalties

• The text of the Regulations, as compiled here, does not set out express criminal penalties, fines, imprisonment terms, or specific civil remedies for breach of the prohibition in r 2(1) or r 3(1). Enforcement in the text is expressed through administrative refusal and cancellation by registration authorities, and through discretionary cancellation of firm or company registrations by State officers. If criminal or civil penalties exist under the War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920 or other enabling statutes, they are not included in these Regulations as compiled here, and therefore are not recorded in this document.

Practical enforcement implications

• Because the registration authorities are commanded to refuse or cancel, the principal sanction for unauthorised commercial use is loss of the benefits of registration: inability to obtain a trade mark, forced cancellation of an existing trade mark or design registration, and potential cancellation of a firm or company registration. For those relying on a company or trade mark using “Anzac”, the immediate operational effect is the administrative removal of registration privileges.

• For street and park name proposals, the effect of r 3(1) is to require Ministerial approval; absence of approval prevents lawful designation, subject to the exceptions in r 3(2).

• The allocation of evidential burden and the Minister’s power to direct registrars means that administrative challenges will turn on proof of authorisation, registrar action, and Ministerial directions. The Regulations therefore establish an enforcement system that prioritises administrative control and Ministerial oversight, rather than prescribing a catalogue of statutory penalties within the Regulations themselves.

The Regulations sit within a regulatory and statutory environment and expressly derive their force from an enabling Act, while also expressly engaging statutory registration systems and State company registration regimes.

Statutory basis

• The Regulations were made under the War Precautions Act Repeal Act 1920, as stated on the face of the compilation. The Regulations themselves are to be cited as the Protection of Word ‘Anzac’ Regulations (r 1). The enabling statute provides the legislative authority for the Regulations, but the text of the enabling Act is not reproduced in this compilation; therefore any powers, penalties or procedures contained in the enabling Act itself are not set out here.

Interaction with intellectual property legislation and offices

• The Regulations bind the Registrar of Trade Marks and the Registrar of Designs to refuse registration and to cancel existing registrations of words that the Regulations say are prohibited from being assumed or used by persons in connexion with trade, business or profession (r 2(3)(a)-(b); r 2(4)(a)-(b)). That creates a direct operational interface with federal IP registration regimes. The Regulations effectively impose a statutory bar on registration where the word’s use is prohibited by r 2(1), and require registrars to implement cancellations unless the Minister directs otherwise. This constitutes an override of ordinary IP registration practices for the limited class of words in question.

Interaction with State company and firm registration law

• r 2(5) contemplates interaction with State Acts that govern the registration of firms and companies. The Registrar‑General or other State officer charged with the registration of firms and companies may permit amendment of names to remove “Anzac” and may cancel registration if the firm or company refuses or fails to apply within a reasonable period for amendment. That provision explicitly ties the Regulations into State registration regimes, authorising State officers to take steps under their own statutory powers to amend or cancel names to comply with the federal Regulation.

Concurrent or overlapping regulatory fields

• The Regulations operate in a space where federal IP and trade mark law, State company registration law, local government naming practices, and administrative decision‑making by a Minister intersect. For example, a business seeking to register a trade mark including “Anzac” will face the federal registrar’s prohibition unless the Minister directs otherwise; a firm registered under a State Act with “Anzac” in its name must apply to its State registration officer to amend or face cancellation (r 2(5)); and a municipal authority naming a street must obtain Ministerial approval unless an exception applies (r 3(1)-(2)).

Carve‑outs that interact with event and fundraising law

• The definition of “Entertainment” in r 1A and the limited exemption for use of the words “Anzac Day” in r 2(1A) interact with regimes governing fundraising, lotteries and public entertainment. The exemption is narrow and conditional; organisers seeking lawful use of “Anzac Day” in connection with entertainment held on 25 April must ensure the use does not name or designate single events inside a multi‑event entertainment if they wish to rely on the exemption.

Absence of express preemption or penalty cross‑references

• The Regulations do not expressly say they preempt other laws, nor do they cross‑reference criminal penalties or enforcement powers in other statutes. Interaction with other laws will therefore depend on how courts and administrators read the Regulations alongside the enabling Act and relevant IP and company statutes. The registrars’ obligations are direct and statutory in nature, but the broader enforcement and penalty architecture beyond administrative refusal and cancellation is not set out in the Regulations themselves.

The compilation includes an amendment and commencement history in the Notes, showing the Regulations were originally made in 1921 and subsequently amended several times. The Notes identify the following Statutory Rules and dates of commencement:

• 1921 No. 2, notified 6 January 1921, commenced 6 January 1921 (original instrument) (Notes, Table of Statutory Rules).
• 1921 No. 216, notified 17 November 1921, commenced 17 November 1921 (Note: this amendment added r 1A, the interpretation provision; see Table of Amendments).
• 1959 No. 29, notified 7 May 1959, commenced 7 May 1959 (Note: this instrument added r 3; see Table of Amendments).
• 1962 No. 79, notified 13 September 1962, commenced 13 September 1962 (amendment affecting r 2).
• 1978 No. 27, notified 28 February 1978, commenced 28 February 1978 (amendment affecting r 2 and r 3).
• 1979 No. 141, notified 26 July 1979, commenced 26 July 1979 (amendment affecting r 2).
• 1989 No. 419, notified 8 January 1990, commenced 8 January 1990 (amendment affecting r 2 and r 3).

The Table of Amendments in the Notes sets out which regulations were added or amended and indicates the years and Statutory Rule numbers involved. Specific amendment notes include:

• r 1A (the interpretation provision defining “Entertainment”) was added by 1921 No. 216 (Table of Amendments).
• r 2 was amended by 1921 No. 216, 1962 No. 79, 1978 No. 27, 1979 No. 141 and 1989 No. 419 (Table of Amendments).
• r 3 was added by 1959 No. 29, and subsequently amended by 1978 No. 27 and 1989 No. 419 (Table of Amendments).

The compilation was prepared on 12 January 2001, taking into account amendments up to SR 1989 No. 419, and was prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting, Attorney‑General’s Department, Canberra. The Notes do not include post‑1989 amendments in this compilation; the Table of Statutory Rules ends at 1989 No. 419. Any amendments after that date are not recorded in the provided compilation.

The amendment history shows a pattern of periodic updates to clarify scope and to add the street/park naming provisions and the entertainment interpretation, but the Regulations as compiled here retain their substantive prohibition framework established in 1921.

This compilation of the Protection of Word ‘Anzac’ Regulations does not record any litigation history, reported cases or judicial decisions. The text contains no references to judicial interpretation, case law, or proceedings under these Regulations. The Notes and Table of Amendments catalog administrative and amending instruments, but include no citations to court decisions.

What the lack of recorded litigation in this compilation means, strictly speaking, is that this document does not provide any court rulings or precedential material that would resolve interpretive uncertainties in the Regulations. The Regulations contain several textual uncertainties that could generate litigation or require administrative clarification in practice, for example:

• The term “resembling” the word “Anzac” is not defined. Determining whether a particular word or mark “resembles” “Anzac” could be a contestable question of fact and law in individual cases.

• The phrase “in connexion with” trade, business, calling or profession is partly addressed by the deeming provisions at r 2(2), but other borderline uses will raise interpretive issues.

• The evidential allocation that “proof whereof shall lie upon the person accused” (r 2(1)) may give rise to procedural disputes about what constitutes sufficient proof of Ministerial authority and the standard of proof required.

• The Registrar‑General’s power to cancel a firm or company that refuses or fails to apply “within a reasonable period” for amendment of its name (r 2(5)(b)) leaves the meaning of “reasonable period” to be worked out in practice or adjudicated if contested.

Because the compilation does not include litigation history, practitioners must assume these interpretive questions remain open in the absence of authoritative judicial guidance in this text. For practical purposes, parties confronting enforcement or administrative action under these Regulations will need to rely on Ministerial directions, registrar practice, and any subsequent statutory or regulatory developments or case law not included in the compilation.

The Regulations are compact but contain several features that create practical pitfalls for businesses, event organisers, public authorities and registrars. The following are concrete, source‑grounded points to watch.

Evidential burden sits with the accused (r 2(1)). If a person is challenged on their use of “Anzac”, they must produce proof of Ministerial authority. That evidential allocation is not symmetrical; the onus is not on the State or registrar to prove lack of authority.

“Resembling” is undefined (r 2(1); r 3(1)). The Regulations bar “Anzac” and any word “resembling” it. Without a statutory definition, parties face uncertainty about how similar a variant must be to fall within the prohibition. That uncertainty affects branding and naming decisions.

Deeming provisions broaden scope (r 2(2)). A use will be deemed to be in connexion with trade or business if it is applied to goods manufactured, produced, sold or offered for sale, or if it is part of a firm or company name registered in Australia. Even incidental commercial uses could be captured by these deeming clauses.

Anzac Day entertainment carve‑out is conditional and narrow (r 2(1A); r 1A). The exemption for “Anzac Day” applies only to entertainment connected with 25 April or consecutive days that include 25 April, and only where those words are not used to describe or designate single events within an entertainment consisting of two or more events. Event organisers who run multi‑event programmes must be careful not to give subevents titles that use “Anzac Day” so as to fall outside the exemption.

Registrar cancellations subject to Ministerial direction (r 2(3)(b); r 2(4)(b)). The registrars must cancel existing trade‑mark or design registrations of prohibited words “unless otherwise directed by the Minister.” That means a Ministerial direction can override the registrars’ cancellation obligation and preserve registrations. Applicants must therefore consider that registrars’ actions may be paused or reversed by Ministerial instruction.

State registration and “reasonable period” (r 2(5)). The Registrar‑General may cancel a company that “refuses or fails to apply within a reasonable period for the amendment of its name.” The Regulations do not define “reasonable period,” leaving companies uncertain about the timeframe they must adhere to when amending names.

Street/park naming exceptions tied to memorials and commencement (r 3(2)). The naming prohibition for streets, roads and parks does not apply when the named place contains or is in the immediate vicinity of a public memorial relating to the 1914 or 1939 wars (r 3(2)(a)), or where the name already contained “Anzac” at the commencement of the regulation (r 3(2)(b)). Local authorities must determine whether a particular place qualifies as being “in the immediate vicinity” of a qualifying public memorial, and whether a name was in place “at the commencement of this regulation,” which depends on historical timing of the Regulation’s commencement. The boundaries of these exceptions are factual and potentially contentious.

No express civil or criminal penalties set out here. The Regulations do not include express penalty provisions in the text provided. Enforcement emphasis is on administrative refusal and cancellation. If one seeks to rely on criminal sanctions or other remedies, they must consult the enabling Act or other statutes, because this compilation does not provide such provisions.

Effect on existing registrations requires proactive attention. Registrars are instructed to cancel existing registrations unless the Minister directs otherwise (r 2(3)(b); r 2(4)(b)). Rights claimed by existing trade‑mark or design holders are therefore contingent on the absence of a Ministerial direction to preserve them; owners should not assume grandfathered rights.

Definition of “Entertainment” includes fundraising (r 1A). The interpretation expressly includes any event “held or conducted for the purpose of raising money,” which means many charity events, galas and similar fundraisers fall within the Regulations’ ambit. Organisers must consider the consequences of using “Anzac” in marketing or naming.

Ministerial authority and procedural uncertainty. The central role of Ministerial authority means that politics, policy priorities and administrative practice can materially affect outcomes. The Regulations give no procedural map for applying for or obtaining Ministerial authority; the process and criteria are not set out in the text provided.

Compliance under these Regulations requires a combination of pre‑use checks, administrative applications, and cautious structuring of names and events. The following steps are grounded in the text and indicate practical measures that align with the Regulations’ requirements.

1. Identify whether the word “Anzac” or a resembling form is intended for use in any of the regulated contexts.

• Check intended uses against r 2(1): trade, business, calling or profession; entertainment; lottery or art union; as name or part of the name of private residences, boats, vehicles, charitable or other institutions; and any building in connexion therewith.
• Check street, road and park naming against r 3(1).

2. If use is contemplated in a regulated context, seek Ministerial authority before assumption or use.

• The Regulations make clear that use without the authorisation of the Minister is prohibited (r 2(1); r 3(1)). Obtain written Ministerial authority where possible, because the person accused must prove Ministerial authority if challenged, as the Regulations place the evidential burden on the accused (r 2(1)).

3. For trade marks and designs, consult the relevant registrars early.

• The Registrar of Trade Marks must refuse registration of any prohibited word and, unless the Minister directs otherwise, cancel existing registrations and refuse further steps in relation to applications (r 2(3)(a)-(b)). The Registrar of Designs has parallel powers (r 2(4)(a)-(b)). Before lodging applications, contact the registrars to establish whether the intended mark would be refused under the Regulations, and whether any Ministerial directions exist or are likely to be sought.

4. For firms and company names, engage the State registration officer.

• r 2(2)(b) deems the use of “Anzac” as part of a firm or company name to be use in connexion with trade or business. r 2(5) authorises the Registrar‑General to permit amendment of names or cancel registration if a firm or company fails or refuses to apply to amend within a reasonable period. Firms and companies with “Anzac” in their registered names should proactively apply to their State registration authority to amend names where required.

5. For events, structure titles and descriptions carefully to fall within the Anzac Day entertainment exemption where intended.

• If organising entertainment on 25 April or on consecutive days that include 25 April, ensure that use of the words “Anzac Day” is limited to describing the overall entertainment, and avoid using those words to designate single events within a multi‑event entertainment programme (r 2(1A)). Note that “Entertainment” is defined broadly, including fundraisers (r 1A).

6. For street, road and park naming, obtain Ministerial approval or ensure an exception applies.

• Before proposing names that include “Anzac”, obtain the Minister’s approval in writing (r 3(1)).
• Evaluate whether the naming falls within the exceptions in r 3(2): whether the site contains or is in the immediate vicinity of a public memorial relating to the 1914 or 1939 wars (r 3(2)(a)), or whether the name contained “Anzac” at the commencement of the regulation (r 3(2)(b)). Document the factual basis for any claim to an exception.

7. Preserve documentary proof of Ministerial authorisation and registrar communications.

• Because proof of Ministerial authority lies on the person accused (r 2(1)), keep written Ministerial approvals, correspondence indicating Ministerial directions to registrars, and any formal decisions or determinations that authorise the use. Similarly, retain documentation from registrars or State officers concerning name amendments, cancellations, or applications.

8. If you have existing registrations or names containing “Anzac”, take immediate steps.

• Where trade marks, designs or company names currently include “Anzac”, coordinate with counsel and registration offices to determine whether those registrations are subject to cancellation under r 2(3)(b), r 2(4)(b), or r 2(5)(b). If possible, seek express Ministerial direction preserving a registration or obtain instructions from the relevant registrar about the process for amendment and timing.

9. Manage branding and product naming alternatives proactively.

• Because the Regulations impede use of “Anzac” in many commercial contexts (r 2(1) and r 2(2)), businesses should prepare alternative trade marks and names to avoid interruption should a registration be refused or cancelled. This step reduces dependence on Ministerial authorisation and the uncertainty of administrative cancellation.

10. Seek legal advice on borderline cases.

• Ambiguities such as what constitutes a word “resembling” “Anzac”, the meaning of “in connexion with” outside the deeming clauses, and what constitutes a “reasonable period” for company name amendment are not defined in the Regulations. Legal advice will be necessary where a proposed use is close to the margin of the prohibition or where strategic decisions about seeking Ministerial authorisation are required.

11. For public authorities and naming proponents, prepare factual records about memorial proximity and historical names.

• Where the exceptions in r 3(2) are relied upon, document the presence of a public memorial relating to the First or Second World War and the physical relationship of the place to that memorial, or document the historical record showing the name contained “Anzac” at the time the Regulation commenced.

Following these steps aligns practical conduct with the text of the Regulations and reduces exposure to administrative cancellation, refusal of registration, and disputes about Ministerial authority. The Regulations place the Minister and registration officers at the centre of compliance outcomes, so advance engagement with those offices and careful record keeping are central to compliant use.