New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial part

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2013

NAPIER TOOL & DIE LIMITED v ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [2013] NZSC 86

Citation

[2013] NZSC 86
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the Court of Appeal did not err in law: the Wham-O elements are interlinked, derivation is the ultimate issue and may be considered first, and the Court of Appeal permissibly reached a different factual conclusion from the High Court that the competing design copied a substantial part of the original beyond what functional constraints explained.
18 Apr 2013

ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & ORS V GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED & ORS COA CA271/2011

Citation

COA CA271/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Technologies held copyright in the commissioned February 1993 drawings; the court found objective similarity and a causal connection demonstrating the respondents copied a substantial part of the Schwarz cup assembly (notably interdependent dimensions and multiple design elements), constituting copyright infringement; however the conduct did not amount to flagrancy; matter remitted to the High Court for inquiry into damages.
4 Sept 2012

G-STAR RAW C.V V JEANSWEST CORPORATION (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-003243

Citation

openlaw-69bc51b7_0a1d_40c2_bc68_dbb69b738c6e.pdf
Court

High Court

Read in context, the pleaded particulars identify the plaintiffs' case with sufficient clarity because the five listed features are the most significant and the plaintiffs expressly rely on the collocation of the four specified features present in the Jeanswest product as constituting a substantial part; the defendant's interrogatories were unnecessary and amounted to a fishing exercise and are dismissed; plaintiffs must re-plead to make explicit reliance on the collocation of the four features; security for costs is adjourned with leave to the defendant to apply further on specified procedur…
30 Nov 2006

HENKEL KGAA V HOLDFAST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 43/2006

Citation

SC 43/2006
Court

Supreme Court

The appeal was dismissed because Henkel's pleadings and the manner in which the case was tried did not permit reliance on the SuperAttak drawing or any drawing underlying SuperAttak; consequently Henkel could not advance that argument on appeal. Even on the merits (considered obiter), UltraBonder did not copy a substantial part of any SuperAttak drawing so as to infringe.

New Zealand Case Law

NAPIER TOOL & DIE LIMITED v ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [2013] NZSC 86

ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & ORS V GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED & ORS COA CA271/2011

G-STAR RAW C.V V JEANSWEST CORPORATION (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-003243

HENKEL KGAA V HOLDFAST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 43/2006