Court questions likelihood of consumer confusion between rugby union and league teams
The High Court of New Zealand has refused an urgent application by New Zealand Rugby Union Incorporated (NZRU) to restrain the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) and PNG Chiefs Limited from using the Chiefs name in New Zealand.
In New Zealand Rugby Union Inc v Australian Rugby League Commission Ltd [2026] NZHC 3220, the court declined preliminary injunctive relief ahead of the PNG Chiefs' scheduled jersey and logo launch in Port Moresby on 21 October 2026.
The NZRU owns registered trade marks for CHIEFS, which the Hamilton-based Chiefs rugby union team has used since 1996. The PNG Chiefs are a Papua New Guinea rugby league franchise scheduled to enter Australia's National Rugby League competition in 2028.
The NZRU alleged that the defendants' use of CHIEFS and PNG Chiefs infringed its registered trade marks under the Trade Marks Act 2002. It also alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and passing off.
The NZRU argued that the names could confuse consumers, undermine its goodwill, and irreparably damage its brand. It sought an injunction restricting their use in New Zealand.
The defendants disputed the allegations, maintaining that the teams represented different countries, sporting codes and competitions. They also argued that the NZRU had delayed seeking relief despite knowing about the PNG Chiefs name since October 2025.
The High Court accepted that there might be a serious question to be tried under s. 89(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. However, it questioned whether the geographical identifier "PNG" failed to distinguish the new franchise from the existing Chiefs team.
The court also expressed doubts about the claims, which required evidence of confusion, deception, or misleading conduct, noting the differences between the teams and their competitions.
In assessing the balance of convenience, the court found that the NZRU could have commenced proceedings significantly earlier. It also considered that the forthcoming launch would continue promotional activities already underway.
The court concluded that the NZRU was unlikely to suffer irreversible damage before a fuller interim injunction hearing in early 2027. It also considered that damages could compensate the NZRU for proven harm if its substantive trade mark claims succeeded.
The court declined the application based on the defendants' undertakings to take reasonable steps to use the full PNG Chiefs name and, where feasible, geo-block relevant online content in New Zealand.
