DREAM DOORS (NZ) LTD v MIKE FATCHES DESIGN LTD [2014] NZHC 290
On the evidence and assurances given by Mr Fatches that he and the companies he controls would cease use of the Dream Doors name and trade-mark, the parties agreed to a consent interim prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from using the name Dream Doors or the Dream Doors trade-mark or any similar name in the operation and marketing of their business, including any website and in connection with the phone numbers 027 444 2860 and 0800 645 333, and the Court made that order pending further order; costs directions were set for determination on the papers.
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 290
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: Dream Doors (NZ) Ltd; Second Plaintiffs (trustees of the Dream Trust): Derek Lilly and Phillip Jay; First Defendant: Mike Fatches Design Ltd; Second Defendant: Michael Ernest Fatches; Third Defendant: Dream Doors Kitchens Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 February 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunctions / Hearing on Interim Injunctions (interlocutory)
- Outcome
- Interim injunction granted by consent restraining defendants from using the name Dream Doors or the Dream Doors trade-mark or any similar name in operation and marketing of their business, including operation of any website and in connection with phone numbers 027 444 2860 and 0800 645 333; costs timetable ordered...
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunction, Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Delivery Up of Property, Franchise and Agency
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dream Doors (NZ) Ltd
First Plaintiff
Derek Lilly and Phillip Jay
Second Plaintiffs (trustees of the Dream Trust)
Mike Fatches Design Ltd
First Defendant
Michael Ernest Fatches
Second Defendant
Dream Doors Kitchens Ltd
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunctions / Hearing on Interim Injunctions (interlocutory)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions should be granted to restrain use of the Dream Doors name and trademark and to compel delivery of intellectual property and transfer of telephone numbers
- 2 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried and where the balance of convenience lies
- 3 Whether the defendant's undertakings and conduct justify a consent interim order
Ratio Decidendi
On the evidence and assurances given by Mr Fatches that he and the companies he controls would cease use of the Dream Doors name and trade-mark, the parties agreed to a consent interim prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from using the name Dream Doors or the Dream Doors trade-mark or any similar name in the operation and marketing of their business, including any website and in connection with the phone numbers 027 444 2860 and 0800 645 333, and the Court made that order pending further order; costs directions were set for determination on the papers.
Court Disposition
Interim injunction granted by consent restraining defendants from using the name Dream Doors or the Dream Doors trade-mark or any similar name in operation and marketing of their business, including operation of any website and in connection with phone numbers 027 444 2860 and 0800 645 333; costs timetable ordered...
Orders
- That an injunction shall issue pending further order of the Court to restrain the defendants from today from using the name Dream Doors or the Dream Doors trade-mark or any similar name in the operation and marketing of the defendants' business, including the operation of any website and in connection with the phone...
- Any application for costs shall be made by memorandum which is to be filed and served on or before Friday 28 March 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment