Guidelines for the use in body corporate names of words suggesting a connection with an ex-servicemen's organisation if that connection does not exist
Regulation
Subregulations 2B.6.01(2) and 5B.3.01(2) respectively of the Corporations Regulations provide that, for paragraphs 147(1)(c) and 601DC(1)(c) of the Corporations Act, a name is unacceptable for registration if it is unacceptable under the rules set out in Part 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations.
Rule 6203(e)(iii) provides that for paragraphs 147(1)(c) and 601DC(1)(c) of the Corporations Act, a name is unacceptable for registration if the name suggests a connection with an ex-servicemen's organisation if that connection does not exist.
Criteria for the Assessment of Applications
Where a proposed body corporate name suggests a connection with an ex-serviceman's organisation that does not exist, an applicant for consent to the use of the proposed name would need to demonstrate that there is no real likelihood that members of the public would be misled into believing that there is such a connection.
Guidelines for the use in body corporate names of the abbreviation 'R.S.L.' or 'RSL'
Regulation
Subregulations 2B.6.01(2) and 5B.3.01(2) respectively of the Corporations Regulations provide that, for paragraphs 147(1)(c) and 601DC(1)(c) of the Corporations Act, a name is unacceptable for registration if it is unacceptable under the rules set out in Part 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations.
Rule 6203(b) provides that a name is unacceptable for registration if the name contains a word or phrase specified in an item in Schedule 6 of the Regulations, an abbreviation of that word or phrase, or a word or phrase or an abbreviation having the same or a similar meaning. Items 6317 and 6317A in Part 3 of Schedule 6 specify the abbreviations 'R.S.L.' and 'RSL'.
Criteria for the Assessment of Applications
Consent will normally be granted to the use of the abbreviation R.S.L. or RSL where there is a valid connection with the Returned and Services League. The validity of the connection may be clear on the face of the application, or apparent from the text of the applicant's constituent documents.
Where appropriate, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will consult with the Commonwealth Department responsible for Veterans Affairs.
If it is clear from the context in which the abbreviation R.S.L. or RSL is used (e.g. 'R.S.L. Jones and Associate Pty Ltd') that there is no connection with the Returned and Services League, consent will normally be granted.
If, however, a proposed body corporate name suggests a possible connection with the Returned and Services League that does not exist, an applicant for consent to the use of the name 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.
Guidelines for the use in body corporate names of words which suggest that an organisation is one of totally or partially incapacitated war veterans if this is not the case
Regulation
Subregulations 2B.6.01(2) and 5B.3.01(2) respectively of the Corporations Regulations provide that, for paragraphs 147(1)(c) and 601DC(1)(c) of the Corporations Act, a name is unacceptable for registration if it is unacceptable under the rules set out in Part 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations.
Rule 6203(f) provides that for paragraphs 147(1)(c) and 601DC(1)(c) of the Corporations Act, a name is unacceptable for registration if it suggests that the members of an organisation are totally or partially incapacitated if those members are not so affected.
The meaning of totally or partially incapacitated in this context is not the same as disabled. The rationale behind the rule is the protection of the name of Totally or Partially Incapacitated War Veterans Associations (TPI Associations).
Criteria for the Assessment of Applications
Where a proposed body corporate name suggests that the organisation is an organisation of Totally or Partially Incapacitated War Veterans and this is not the case, an applicant for consent to the use of the proposed name would need to demonstrate that there is no real likelihood that members of the public would be misled into believing into believing that the body corporate is such an organisation.