New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Infringement

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2019

ZHANG v SEALEGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2019] NZCA 389

Citation

(2019) 146 1PR 476
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, concluding the High Court erred in treating the collocation of known functional components as highly original and in failing properly to exclude similarities driven by functional constraints and common subject matter when assessing objective similarity; because Sealegs confined its claim to a collocation of generic functional components the requisite originality in expression was insufficient and there was no infringement, so the High Court orders were set aside.
24 Sept 2018

AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION LIMITED v A LITTLE BIT OF BRITAIN LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2501

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2501
Court

High Court

Weetabix is not 'identical' to Weet-Bix (different spelling and aural form) but is similar; use of the Weetabix sign on packaging is likely to deceive or confuse ordinary New Zealand consumers for the purposes of s135 (border protection) and, on balance, use in the course of trade by LBB is likely to deceive or confuse for the purposes of s89; Customs lawfully detained the goods and lawfully granted the limited retroactive extension; the ® symbol on Weetabix packaging is not misleading under the FTA; appropriate remedies are destruction of detained cartons and a conditional permanent injuncti…
30 Nov 2017

RESMED LTD v FISHER & PAYKEL HEALTHCARE LTD [2017] NZHC 2954

Citation

(2017) 131 IPR 169
Court

High Court

The application for further and better particulars is declined. The court held FPH's pleadings already give a sufficient outline of the common general knowledge and the prior art relied upon to give fair notice; requiring FPH to map each claim integer to passages in prior art or to plead constructions of features would compel pleading of expert evidence, be unduly burdensome and premature while discovery remains incomplete.
14 Nov 2017

HOYLE v HOYLE & ANOR [2017] NZCA 516

Citation

[2017] NZCA 516
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent's AutoCAD drawings and laser cutting files were original works protected by copyright and that the appellant had copied them; the appellant's late and evasive pleading failed to put prior art or alternate ownership sufficiently in issue so as to prejudice the respondent, and the injunction was modified to prevent copying and dealing with the copyrighted works while not extending to a blanket prohibition on manufacturing non-infringing products.
19 Dec 2016

HOYLE v TRANSPREAD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2016] NZHC 3120

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3120
Court

High Court

The Court found the first plaintiff (David Hoyle) authored the pleaded AutoCAD drawings and derived .dxf files, those works are original and protected by copyright, the defendant copied them (inference supported by objective similarity, access and implausible independent design) and reproduced a substantial part in both .dxf files and manufactured machines; Transpread as exclusive licensee has standing; injunction granted (limited by s75 to exclude relief for spreaders after 22 December 2017); defendant's counterclaims dismissed.
14 Oct 2016

ASSA ABLOY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ALLEGION (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2436

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2436
Court

High Court

Costs lie where they fall because success and failure were substantially shared, a 2C scale would have been appropriate but overall justice did not justify a costs award to either side given Calderbank offers were not unreasonably rejected and pre-trial applications were not wholly meritless.
29 Jul 2016

ASSA ABLOY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ALLEGION (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1738

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1738
Court

High Court

Claim 18 must be read purposively: the patent's object is a latching mechanism configurable to end‑use requirements. Applying the skilled addressee standard the Stella does not infringe because its integral spigots mean it lacks the claimed 'drive member coupled to the snib' which is central to configurability. The Latch patent is nevertheless valid: it was novel and involved an inventive synergistic combination (driver coupled to snib plus dual receiver/back‑to‑back tailbars with co‑axial arrangement) not rendered obvious by prior art such as the Sentry, Albany and other known locks.
6 Oct 2015

CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2015] NZHC 2432

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2432
Court

High Court

The Crocodile Logo did not attract New Zealand artistic copyright because, when created, it possessed the essential characteristics of a design capable of registration under the prior design enactments (PDTMA 1922/Designs Act); even assuming copyright existed and was owned by Dr Tan, defendants were precluded from preventing Lacoste's use by reason of implied authorisation/acquiescence and delay; Lacoste had a bona fide intention to use the mark in New Zealand so its registration application must be allowed; there was no bad faith and ownership was not successfully challenged.
20 Apr 2015

Doug Andrews Heating & Ventilation Ltd & Anor v Wayne James Dil & Ors CA5/2014 [2015] NZCA 122

Citation

[2015] NZCA 122
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court construes claim 1 purposively to require interengageable parts where the upper part defines a separate cooking chamber above the plate means; on that construction the UFO cooker does not infringe because its lower part already contains a cooking chamber and the upper part merely extends it. The counterclaim attacking validity failed: alleged prior art evidence did not prove anticipation and, on obviousness, there was insufficient reliable prior art and expert evidence to establish that the interengageable two-part concept would have been obvious to the skilled addressee at the prior…
12 Dec 2013

DOUG ANDREWS HEATING AND VENTILATION LIMITED AND MULTI KC LIMITED v WAYNE JAMES DIL [2013] NZHC 3333

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3333
Court

High Court

Claim 1 must be construed purposively to require that the second part comprises the cooking chamber; a cooker whose lower part already comprises the cooking chamber and where extensions merely extend that existing chamber (the UFO cooker with extensions) does not fall within claim 1 and therefore does not infringe. The defendants failed to establish invalidity for want of novelty or obviousness on the evidence presented. The groundless threats counterclaim failed because proceedings were commenced and the alleged threats were not actionable in the circumstances. Costs awarded to defendants on…