New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Domain name transfer

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2016

YELLOW HOLDINGS LTD v EUROBELT LTD [2016] NZHC 1448

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1448
Court

High Court

Court concluded there was a serious question to be tried that threatened use or sale of yellow.net.nz could constitute passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct given the plaintiff's more recent goodwill in YELLOW, but it was unlikely that the defendant's mere registration in 1998 amounted to passing off or contravened the Fair Trading Act; accordingly a restraining (quia timet) interim injunction was granted to prevent use or disposal pending trial, while a mandatory injunction ordering immediate transfer was refused because the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured prese…
19 Jul 2011

DIVETT V SKEATES HC AK CIV-2007-404-3606

Citation

openlaw-83560697_b47e_4cb0_bebf_c21d13d24224.pdf
Court

High Court

The settlement deed must be interpreted objectively in context; on the evidence the Court found some specific breaches by the defendants (failure to use best endeavours to procure transfers, failure to transfer www.refocussing.dk within 28 days though later transferred, reproduction and dissemination of limited plaintiffs' exercises and a PowerPoint slide substantially similar to plaintiffs' works, and making derogatory statements) but did not find a fiduciary/agency relationship with European associates nor that Insight Focused Therapy/IFT is confusingly similar to Refocussing/RFT; many alle…
11 Feb 2010

DIANE ROSINA TOWAI DIVETT AND ANOR V PAULINE SKEATES AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-003606

Citation

openlaw-2ef4abda_abc1_402f_a6b5_54c3ae6b7c8a.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine the first defendant was granted because, on the evidence and in view of the court's interest in ensuring compliance with its orders, it was at least arguable that the defendants had not complied with the Deed of Settlement and the Tomlin Order, which constituted 'special circumstances' under r 7.28; the cross-examination is limited to whether the compromise, properly construed, has been complied with and whether the Court's order has been breached, and is otherwise to be tightly confined and time-limited.
24 May 2006

SHOTOVER JET LTD V BUTTERFLI ENTERPRISES LTD HC CHCH CIV-2005-425-000593

Citation

openlaw-8f40ebb4_d2d1_4cb2_9a0f_8ed484cde47a.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants were in breach of the consent injunction in respect of domain name transfer and removal of the FUNYAK name from canoes and exhibited dilatoriness in remedial publicity, but the breaches were not shown to be wilful or reckless to the criminal standard; accordingly punitive sanctions (fine or committal) were inappropriate, but an award toward plaintiff's costs on an indemnity-style basis was justified ($20,000).

New Zealand Case Law

YELLOW HOLDINGS LTD v EUROBELT LTD [2016] NZHC 1448

DIVETT V SKEATES HC AK CIV-2007-404-3606

DIANE ROSINA TOWAI DIVETT AND ANOR V PAULINE SKEATES AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-003606

SHOTOVER JET LTD V BUTTERFLI ENTERPRISES LTD HC CHCH CIV-2005-425-000593