4 Feb 2011
BRAND DEVELOPERS LIMITED V EZIBUY LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-007593
- Citation
- openlaw-703bad58_8d99_4f3e_8ecc_7f0f4c07f3e8.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The plaintiffs failed to show a serious question to be tried because the challenged product (AB TWIST) is not substantially the same in appearance as the registered design 412655 once the claimed novel features (the single circular tubular ring supporting centrally pivoted knee rests) are assessed against the actual AB TWIST structure and relevant prior art; further, even if a serious question existed the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured refusal because an injunction would likely destroy defendants' NZ market and defendants' losses would be difficult to quantify while the p…