Fashion Brand or Paper Tiger? Constance Hall Loses QUEEN THE LABEL Trade Mark

Fashion Brand or Paper Tiger? Constance Hall Loses QUEEN THE LABEL Trade Mark

When you register a trade mark, you're making a promise to use it — or risk losing it. Australian blogger and author Constance Hall found this out the hard way in a recent non-use removal proceeding that stripped her of the QUEEN THE LABEL trade mark. The case is a masterclass in what can go wrong when a licensing arrangement isn't properly documented and corporate restructuring leaves a mark's ownership story muddled.

Background: A Fashion Brand With Big Plans

In 2017, Constance Hall — then at the height of her influence as one of Australia's most-followed bloggers — registered the trade mark QUEEN THE LABEL across classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35. The registration covered fashion goods and accessories, signalling an ambitious lifestyle brand to accompany her media presence.

Initially, use of the mark was licensed to Constance Group Pty Ltd in 2018. The business then restructured into a new entity, Queen Biz Pty Ltd, in which Hall co-held the directorship alongside her brother-in-law, Mr Pisano, on a 50/50 basis. By August 2024, Queen Biz had entered administration.

Meanwhile, Queen Productions Limited — represented by Davies Collison Cave — filed to remove the trade mark for non-use, targeting the period from 28 September 2021 to 28 September 2024.

What Hall Tried to Show

Hall's team filed a range of evidence: Instagram, TikTok and Facebook posts using the QUEEN THE LABEL branding, screenshots from the website queenthelabel.com.au, and a sales spreadsheet covering February 2023 to January 2024. On its face, there appeared to be at least some commercial activity.

The problem wasn't a lack of activity — it was a lack of authorised use. Under section 8 of the Trade Marks Act 1995, use by a person other than the registered owner only counts if that person is an "authorised user" — meaning the owner exercises genuine financial or quality control over the use.

The Decision: Why the Mark Was Removed

Delegate Timothy Brown identified three fatal problems with Hall's case.

First, the original licence agreement was granted to Constance Group — not to Queen Biz. No new licence agreement between Hall and Queen Biz was produced. Without that document, Queen Biz's use of the mark simply couldn't be attributed to Hall as registered owner.

Second, Hall's role as co-director of Queen Biz was not sufficient to establish the "unity of purpose" that can sometimes justify treating a company's use as the owner's use. With two equal controlling minds — Hall and Pisano — the company had its own autonomous decision-making structure. Hall was not in a position to unilaterally direct and control how the mark was used.

Third, the evidence of quality control was thin: only two email chains touched on anything resembling oversight, and Hall's own responses to those exchanges were not included in the evidence. The website, queenthelabel.com.au, was registered to "LIKE A QUEEN PTY LIMITED" — a deregistered entity — rather than Hall personally. The sales spreadsheet listed figures without any clear indication of what goods were sold or that sales occurred within Australia.

Discretion to maintain the registration was not exercised. The business was in administration, no residual reputation was demonstrated, and there was no credible evidence of any intention to resume use. Costs were awarded against Hall.

Practical Takeaways for Brand Owners

• Update your licence agreements when you restructure. If the entity using your mark changes — even through an internal restructure — document the new arrangement properly. An old licence to a defunct entity doesn't carry over automatically.

• Co-directorships don't substitute for documented control. Being on the board of a company using your mark is not the same as exercising the kind of financial or quality control section 8 requires. The law looks for evidence of actual oversight, not just nominal presence.

• Keep your evidence contemporaneous and contextualised. Sales spreadsheets need context; website screenshots should show domain registration matching the registered owner; emails about quality should include all parties' responses. Sparse or decontextualised evidence rarely carries the day.

• Don't let a business entering administration become a mark in limbo. If your licensing vehicle collapses, act quickly — whether by reassigning use, finding a new licensee, or taking steps to directly demonstrate use — before the three-year non-use window closes.

Citation: Constance Hall v Queen Productions Limited [2026] ATMO 126 (10 July 2026)

Facing a trade mark issue? Contact Stellar Law for expert advice.