New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery up

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2023

VEC LIMITED v VAPEMAN NZ LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1581

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1581
Court

High Court

Vapeman's use of 'SOLO+' and the triangular logo on disposable electronic cigarettes infringed Vec's registered 'SOLO' under s89(1)(c): the marks are similar, the goods are identical/similar, the use is likely to deceive or confuse, and Vapeman offered no defence; summary judgment entered for Vec and injunctive and ancillary relief ordered, with enquiry as to damages or account of profits at Vec's election and interest to follow.
25 Sept 2008

THE UPPER DECK COMPANY LLC V REACH NZ LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-004944

Citation

openlaw-5322a601_f2e4_45bb_9c59_5a17687aee20.pdf
Court

High Court

Default judgment was properly entered because the defendant took no steps to defend after being served and Customs had issued a s146 determination indicating infringement; plaintiff was entitled to the remedies sought and to costs, which were awarded on a 2B basis with specified reductions and disbursements of $1,886.25.
19 Oct 2007

HELILOGGING HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ORS V MARK WAYNE FORD AND ANOR HC NWP CIV 2007-443-578

Citation

openlaw-e8b3e63e_0b08_47b7_9661_e018e121dfc5.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted interlocutory relief directing delivery up of the five specified helicopters and ordered the parties to appoint an agreed expert to determine allocation of mixed parts (with associated log cards) between plaintiffs and defendants; plaintiffs must secure UK parts in safe custody and provide security (bank guarantee or cash) in the sum of US$40,000 before the order takes effect; liberty to apply and costs reserved.
20 Sept 2006

ABB LTD & ORS V NZ INSULATORS LTD HC AK CIV-2004-404-4829

Citation

openlaw-82f79b3c_5bbb_4a9d_b804_17b224f8cc62.pdf
Court

High Court

NZI's conduct in manufacturing, packaging and marketing the BM in a form virtually identical to the S91, using the same blister packaging, part numbers and pricing, and specific representations (including '3kA' marking and fax describing BM as 'equivalent'), was likely to mislead purchasers as to commercial origin and as to suitability/safety (including 3kA short-circuit capacity) in breach of ss 9 and 10 FTA; passing off failed because goodwill in New Zealand S91 market prior to 2004 belonged to NZI as distributor; Desto owned copyright in three of four technical modification drawings and NZ…

New Zealand Case Law

VEC LIMITED v VAPEMAN NZ LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1581

THE UPPER DECK COMPANY LLC V REACH NZ LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-004944

HELILOGGING HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ORS V MARK WAYNE FORD AND ANOR HC NWP CIV 2007-443-578

ABB LTD & ORS V NZ INSULATORS LTD HC AK CIV-2004-404-4829