New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial part test

Legal area

Court

27 May 2015

DREAMTECH DESIGNS & PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD v CLOWNFISH ENTERTAINMENT LTD & ORS [2015] NZHC 1143

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1143
Court

High Court

There is a serious question to be tried on Dreamtech's claims of copyright infringement, passing off and Fair Trading Act liability, but on the balance of convenience and overall justice an interim injunction should be refused because granting the proposed orders would likely irreparably devastate the defendants' businesses while Dreamtech did not demonstrate immediate irreparable harm that could not be addressed at trial.
2 Nov 2007

STEELBRO NZ LTD V TIDD ROSS TODD LTD CA CA7/06

Citation

openlaw-66b73d14_4858_42a9_8066_46d5c12282cd.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

On the facts the Court upheld the trial judge's findings that Steelbro had access to TRT's product, that Steelbro's SB121 reproduced a substantial part of the TRT Triple's copyrighted expression, and that the similarities could not be adequately explained by engineering or regulatory constraints; accordingly Steelbro infringed TRT's copyright and the appeal was dismissed.
17 May 2006

HOLDFAST NZ LTD V HENKEL KGAA CA CA248/04

Citation

openlaw-f4596b94_0a0d_484c_b7df_0f0094baa50a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment because Henkel failed to establish infringement of copyright in the Cipidue drawings or in any proved underlying drawings: the contested features were largely unoriginal or previously used by Holdfast, Henkel did not prove ownership of inferred intermediate drawings, the court must compare alleged copies with the specific copyrighted drawings (not general design concepts), and the undertaking did not extend to the Ultra Bonder packaging. Consequently there was no breach of copyright or of the undertaking.
11 Jun 2004

THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO V BENCHMARKING SERVICES LTD And Anor CA CA.216/03

Citation

openlaw-46220f6e_7211_47ea_9705_1f7b72d68b74.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Pages 6 and 7 of the respondents' brochure and the corresponding material on the respondents' website objectively reproduce the headings, ratios, columns, format and data of the appellant's 2001 report and CD-ROM such that there is an irresistible inference of copying and a sufficient causal connection; accordingly there is no defence to infringement of the report and CD-ROM and summary judgment and injunctive relief are appropriate, but the questionnaire claim raises factual issues so summary judgment is refused on that limb.

New Zealand Case Law

DREAMTECH DESIGNS & PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD v CLOWNFISH ENTERTAINMENT LTD & ORS [2015] NZHC 1143

STEELBRO NZ LTD V TIDD ROSS TODD LTD CA CA7/06

HOLDFAST NZ LTD V HENKEL KGAA CA CA248/04

THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO V BENCHMARKING SERVICES LTD And Anor CA CA.216/03