Offensive names

A business name is undesirable if, in the opinion of ASIC, it is likely to be offensive to:

1. members of the public, or
2. members of any section of the public.

Suggesting a connection that does not exist

A business name is also undesirable if it suggests a connection with any of the following that does not exist:

1. the Crown
2. the Commonwealth Government
3. the Government of a State or Territory
4. a municipal or other local authority
5. a department, authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth Government
6. a department, authority or instrumentality of the Government of a State or Territory
7. the government of a foreign country
8. a member of the Royal family
9. the receipt of Royal Patronage
10. a charitable organisation
11. an ex-service personnel organisation or ex-service personnel generally
12. Sir Donald Bradman
13. Mary Mackillop
14. the United Nations.

Suggesting members of an organisation are totally or partially incapacitated

A business name that suggests the members of an organisation are totally or partially incapacitated is undesirable if those members are not so affected.

‘Commonwealth’ or ‘Federal’

Despite the above, a business name that includes the word ‘Commonwealth’ or ‘Federal’ is not undesirable if ASIC is satisfied the word is used in a geographical context.  For example, ‘Federal Avenue Plaza’.

If ASIC is not satisfied that ‘Commonwealth’ or ‘Federal’ are used in a geographical context, the applicant may apply for Ministerial consent.

Connection to government

A business name is considered undesirable if it suggests a connection with government (i.e. any of the bodies or people listed at (a) to (i) and (n) of Part 3 of the Names Determination), unless the connection does exist or, if the word 'Commonwealth' or 'Federal' is included in the business name, the word is only used in a geographical context.

A connection with government would normally be demonstrated by written evidence from the relevant Government or department, authority or instrumentality of the relevant Government or other person or organisation detailing the connection. A Ministerial consent is not required if the connection has been demonstrated.

Criteria for the assessment of applications

Consent will normally be granted for such applications if:

1. the applicant establishes there is support or approval from the relevant government or body to use the name
2. the applicant is a non-profit organisation that has support or approval from the Commonwealth Government.

However, where a proposed business name:

1. suggests a connection with government that does not exist
2. there is no support or approval from the relevant government or body

the applicant will need to demonstrate that there is no real likelihood that members of the public will be misled into believing that there is such a connection.

Connection to the royal family or receipt of Royal patronage

The references to the Royal Family are references to the British Monarchy.

A business name which, in the context it is proposed to be used, suggests a connection with a member of the Royal Family or receipt of Royal patronage, and that connection does not exist, is considered to be undesirable and, therefore, unavailable to be registered to an entity.

Criteria for the assessment of applications

A connection could be considered to exist if:

1. the relevant member of the Royal Family has endorsed a name that suggests a connection with that person
2. the business has in fact received Royal patronage, or the operators of the business are also involved with another body that has received Royal patronage.

Ministerial consent is not required if the connection has been demonstrated.

If the connection has not been demonstrated, consent will normally only be granted for such applications if the applicant has demonstrated that there is no real likelihood that members of the public would be misled into believing that there is a connection with a member of the Royal Family or receipt of Royal patronage.

Connection with Sir Donald Bradman or Mary MacKillop

A business name which, in the context it is proposed to be used, suggests a connection with Sir Donald Bradman or Mary MacKillop, and that connection does not exist, is considered to be undesirable.

Criteria for the assessment of applications

A connection could be considered to exist if the application has received the support or approval from a relevant institution or organisation, for example, the Bradman Foundation or the Sisters of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart.

Ministerial consent is not required if the connection has been demonstrated.

If the connection has not been demonstrated consent will normally only be granted for such applications if the applicant has demonstrated there is no real likelihood that members of the public would be misled into believing that there is a connection with Sir Donald Bradman or Mary MacKillop.

Connection with a charitable organisation

Any business name which, in the context it is proposed to be used, suggests a connection with a charitable organisation and that connection does not exist is considered to be undesirable. Ministerial consent is not required if the business name does not contain the words 'charitable' or 'charity' and a connection with a charitable organisation has been demonstrated.

Criteria for the assessment of applications

If a connection with a 'charitable organisation' has not been demonstrated, consent will normally be granted for such applications if:

1. the name does not contain the words 'charitable' or 'charity'
2. the applicant has demonstrated that there is no real likelihood that members of the public would be misled into believing that there is a connection with a charitable organisation.

Connection to an ex-service personnel organisation or ex-service personnel

Any business name which in the context it is proposed to be used suggests a connection with an ex-service personnel organisation or ex-service personnel generally and that connection does not exist, is considered to be undesirable.

R.S.L.', 'RSL', 'Lest We Forget' and 'Anzac' are also restricted words appearing in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Names Determination. See Guidelines for Ministerial Consent - Restricted words and expressions for more information.

Ministerial consent is not required if the name does not contain the words 'R.S.L.', 'RSL', 'Lest We Forget' or 'Anzac' and a connection has been demonstrated.

Criteria for the assessment of applications

If a connection to an ex-service personnel organisation or ex-service personnel generally has not been demonstrated, consent will normally be granted for such applications if:

1. the name does not contain the words 'R.S.L.', 'RSL', 'Lest We Forget' or 'Anzac'
2. the applicant has demonstrated that there is no real likelihood that members of the public would be misled into believing that there is a connection with an ex service personnel organisation or ex-service personnel generally.

Connection to suggesting incapacity

Any business name which suggests members of an organisation are totally or partially incapacitated and those members are not so affected is considered to be undesirable.

Criteria for the assessment of applications

The applicant will need to demonstrate that it provides a service to its members or other members of the community who are totally or partially incapacitated by demonstrating:

1. support or approval to use the name from a Totally or Partially Incapacitated War Veterans Association (TPI Association)
2. the business is part of, or has received support or approval to use the name from, a relevant organisation that provides support or service for totally or partially incapacitated persons.

Ministerial consent is not required if the members of the organisation are totally or partially incapacitated.

If a connection to an organisation of Totally or Partially Incapacitated War Veterans or other organisation representing incapacitated members is not demonstrated, consent will normally be granted for such applications if the applicant has demonstrated that there is no real likelihood that members of the public would be misled into believing that the members of the organisation are totally or partially incapacitated.