I can't see today's decision on a legal database yet but this...

I can't see today's decision on a legal database yet but this case, Fonterra (and Bonlac) v Bega (No 4) had multiple earlier days in court, of which one from February 2020 briefly summarised the issue (though went into much greater detail than below, and there was a counterclaim by Bega as you noted):

1. In November 2019, a trial between the parties commenced before McDonald J. The plaintiffs (‘Fonterra’) and the defendant (‘Bega’) are parties to, among other things, a trademark licensing agreement (‘TMLA’), which was executed on 8 May 2001. The TMLA facilitated a significant commercial arrangement between the parties, whereby Fonterra would purchase and market natural cheese produced by Bega under the ‘Bega’ brand. The TMLA conferred upon Fonterra a license to use the Bega trademark. A central issue in the current proceeding is whether the licence is exclusive, thus depriving Bega of the right to use the ‘Bega’ trademark on non-cheese products.
   

1. The dispute which gave rise to the current proceeding commenced in 2017, when Bega, without the consent, and, indeed, in the face of active opposition from Fonterra, commenced using the Bega brand name on a range of food products, such as peanut butter and macaroni and cheese, some of which became part of the Bega stable when Bega purchased the Australian business of Mondelez Inc, a multinational food company which owned, among other things, Kraft branded peanut butter. Accordingly, the commercial interests of both parties are significant: both Fonterra and Bega generate significant revenue from the sale of Bega branded cheese, and Bega is keen to build and promote the products it acquired from Mondelez.