New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination of licence

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2013

FAST FUTURE BRANDS PROPRIETARY LIMITED v VALLEYGIRL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA74/2013 [2013] NZCA 615

Citation

[2013] NZCA 615
Court

Court of Appeal

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that Jim/FFB consented to Michael registering and using the Valleygirl and TEMT marks in New Zealand in 2003 and that Michael consistently acted on that basis thereafter; the 2008 agreements and subsequent conduct did not demonstrate that Michael was required to relinquish ownership of the New Zealand marks; accordingly the High Court was correct to declare that the appellants' later New Zealand registrations were invalid and to dismiss appellants' infringement/passing off/Fair Trading Act claims.
15 Dec 2009

WATSON & SON LTD V ACTIVE MANUKA HONEY ASSOCIATION CA CA469/2009

Citation

openlaw-20be06c8_d188_4de8_a42e_134552d77448.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 16.2 of the licence, properly construed in its factual matrix, includes an indemnity for legal costs on a solicitor–client basis for actions and damages resulting from the licensee's operations under the licence; that indemnity is enforceable when applicable and the court's role is limited to assessing the reasonableness of the solicitor–client costs and public policy considerations; the indemnity does not extend to litigation based on post-termination conduct not undertaken as operations under the licence.
19 Nov 2009

OKAHU HAULAGE INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2009-404-002292

Citation

openlaw-33ed6b60_dff2_4e21_8307_fccafc251d16.pdf
Court

High Court

The Council validly terminated the licence under clause 2.3 because the proposed change (ceasing cleaning and maintenance on the licensed area) amounted to an alternate use within the contractual definition; there was no error of law, no demonstrable Wednesbury-unreasonableness and no procedural impropriety or enforceable legitimate expectation to relocate under clause 21.2, so the judicial review application fails.
20 May 2009

LENNOX HEARTH PRODUCTS LIMITED V BURLEY APPLIANCES LIMITED CA CA702/2007

Citation

openlaw-161b80df_46f0_4961_a1d9_92a15079ea64.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 5.2 requires the named elements (singly or as a composite) to be the same as or substantially similar to designs or inventions embodied in the licensed models (eg the G4000); Keane J's unchallenged factual findings showed the Burley products did not so accord, therefore no royalties under clause 5.2 were payable.
21 May 2007

HAWKE'S BAY VEHICLE EXCHANGE LTD V STU MACDONALD MOTORS LTD HC NAP CIV 2007-441-052

Citation

openlaw-d1a64866_a390_46a2_9877_633785effbd5.pdf
Court

High Court

No implied term to equally share physical yard space arose: the term was not necessary to give business efficacy, was not capable of clear expression given the short fixed term and uncertainties, and the agreement operated satisfactorily until the appellant unilaterally sought to increase its stock; therefore the appellant's termination was unlawful and the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

FAST FUTURE BRANDS PROPRIETARY LIMITED v VALLEYGIRL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA74/2013 [2013] NZCA 615

WATSON & SON LTD V ACTIVE MANUKA HONEY ASSOCIATION CA CA469/2009

OKAHU HAULAGE INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2009-404-002292

LENNOX HEARTH PRODUCTS LIMITED V BURLEY APPLIANCES LIMITED CA CA702/2007

HAWKE'S BAY VEHICLE EXCHANGE LTD V STU MACDONALD MOTORS LTD HC NAP CIV 2007-441-052