THE NORTH FACE APPAREL CORPORATION Appellant. SANYANG INDUSTRY COMPANY LIMITED Respondent. Randerson, Harrison and French JJ
|
|
- Rachel King
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA638/2012 [2014] NZCA 398 BETWEEN AND THE NORTH FACE APPAREL CORPORATION Appellant SANYANG INDUSTRY COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 15 April 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson, Harrison and French JJ G Arthur and L C Carter for Appellant M C Warburton and C A Warburton for Respondent 15 August 2014 at 10 am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A B C The appeal is dismissed. The cross-appeal is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to pay 50 per cent of the respondent s costs on a Band A basis for a standard appeal together with usual disbursements. REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Harrison J) NORTH FACE APPAREL CORPORATION V SANYANG INDUSTRY COMPANY LIMITED CA638/2012 [2014] NZCA 398 [15 August 2014]
2 Introduction [1] Sanyang Industry Co Ltd (Sanyang) applied to the Intellectual Property Office to register a trade mark for four different classes of goods. 1 The North Face Apparel Corp (North Face) opposed the application for registration for one class only on the ground that Sanyang was not the owner of its proposed mark. Following a defended hearing, an Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks granted Sanyang s application. 2 [2] Collins J dismissed North Face s appeal from the Assistant Commissioner s decision. 3 He was satisfied that Sanyang owned the mark. North Face now appeals to this Court. Sanyang cross-appeals against the Judge s threshold finding that North Face has used one of its unregistered marks for some items within the contested class before Sanyang applied for registration. Background [3] The background facts can be stated shortly. [4] Sanyang is a Taiwanese company which manufactures a wide range of products including cars, motorbikes and parts and accessories. Recently it has added clothing and other apparel to its range of goods. [5] As Collins J observed: [13] Sanyang ha[s] explained that its original trade mark was a stylised moving arrow incorporated into the letter Y of its SYN trade mark. The arrow was adopted to indicate forward movement of its motor cycles and motor vehicles. In 2006 Sanyang developed its trade mark which it describes as being a stylised arrow. Sanyang says that its trade mark is simply a modernised version of the trade mark it used from 1954 to [6] Sanyang applied to register its mark under classes 7, 16, 25 and 35 of the Ninth Edition of the International Trade Mark Classification System adopted as part Trade Marks Act 2002, s 32(1). Sanyang Industry Co Ltd v The North Face Apparel Corp [2012] NZIPOTM 3 [IPONZ decision]. The North Face Apparel Corp v Sanyang Industry Co Ltd [2012] NZHC 2259 [HC decision].
3 of the Nice Agreement. North Face s opposition to registration was restricted to class 25 only, which covers: Clothing; swimsuits; shirts; beachwear; vests; tee-shirts; coveralls; coats; liveries; footwear; scarves; neckties; headwear; earmuffs; socks; mittens; waistbands; all included in this class. [7] Sanyang s device mark, which the Assistant Commissioner accepted for registration, is as follows: [8] North Face is a well-established company operating from California. It produces and sells worldwide clothing and equipment used by mountaineers, trampers, snow sport participants and travellers. It has developed a number of trade marks for products. Its most prominent mark is this one: [9] North Face s opposition to Sanyang s application was based upon its development and use of two other marks, being: (a) the S device mark: (b) the S device and word mark, or composite mark:
4 [10] North Face claimed that it had used its marks on or in relation to items of clothing and related apparel distributed in New Zealand since September or October The company claimed use by: (a) its S device mark alone on or in relation to gloves and mittens; and (b) its composite mark, with the S device above the Summit Series mark, on or in relation to jackets, parkas, pants, overalls, gloves and mittens. Assistant Commissioner s decision [11] North Face s notice of opposition was based on six discrete grounds, namely that the proposed mark: (a) was likely to deceive or cause confusion; 4 (b) would be contrary to the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1986; 5 (c) would also be contrary to the law against passing off; 6 (d) would otherwise be contrary to law; 7 (e) was identical or similar to North Face s well known mark or an essential element of it; 8 and (f) was not owned by Sanyang due to North Face s prior use. 9 As we shall explain, it is significant that North Face ultimately confined its opposition to the last ground. [12] The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that North Face had established use of its composite mark in New Zealand before 22 January 2008 (the date of Sanyang s application for registration). 10 However, when used within the composite mark, the S device mark could not be separated from the Summit Series mark, and there was no evidence of use of the device mark alone. North Face s expedition apparel, equipment and footwear catalogues showed its use of the composite mark for jackets, parkas, pants, overalls, gloves and mittens. 11 [13] The Assistant Commissioner found that on a visual comparison the composite mark and Sanyang s mark were not substantially identical. 12 In particular: (a) Trade Marks Act, s 17(1)(a). Section 17(1)(b). Section 17(1)(b). Section 17(1)(b). Section 25(1)(c). Section 32(1). IPONZ decision, above n 2, at [24] [29]. At [26]. At [35].
5 North Face s composite mark comprises two essential features: the device and the words Summit Series ; (b) the position of the words Summit Series helps to anchor the device mark above it so that the device must be viewed from a particular perspective; (c) the words Summit Series give the trade mark context by implying that its centre is a summit; (d) the incomplete circle in the North Face trade mark may give the impression of a highly stylised S which might stand for Summit or Series ; and (e) Sanyang s trade mark was three dimensional and reminiscent of a badge of a motor vehicle and had a metallic, and therefore industrial, appearance. 13 High Court [14] While the Assistant Commissioner and Collins J both found that North Face used its composite mark for two items of class 25 goods (gloves and mittens) before 22 January 2008, they differed on the nature and extent of North Face s use of its S device mark before that time. The Judge, contrary to the Assistant Commissioner, found that the two components of the composite mark the S device and word marks could be uncoupled. 14 Based on North Face s provision of a sales catalogue in New Zealand in 2007, Collins J found that North Face owned the S device mark for gloves and mittens. 15 However, he rejected its argument that it owned Sanyang s proposed mark. Mr Arthur challenges that finding. Mr Warburton supports it but challenges the first finding. [15] At North Face s urging, Collins J applied the test of whether the North Face S device mark was the same or substantially identical to the Sanyang mark. 16 He accepted that a side by side comparison was appropriate, 17 following Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd. 18 By that approach the Court is required to have regard to similarities and differences and the importance of these assessed having regard to the essential features of the registered mark and the total impression of resemblance or dissimilarity that emerges from the At [32] [34]. HC decision, above n 3, at [35]. At [35]. At [36] [39]. At [38]. Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407.
6 comparison. 19 The Judge noted that such a comparison was discouraged where the issue was whether trade marks were deceptively or confusingly similar 20 but observed there were some common features of the two tests. 21 Applying the substantial identity approach, he was satisfied that Sanyang owned its mark. We shall return to his reasons later in this judgment. Appeal [16] Two related issues arise on North Face s appeal and Sanyang s cross-appeal. First, what was the nature and extent of North Face s use of its composite and S device marks in New Zealand before 22 January 2008? Second, depending in part on the answer to the first, did North Face own Sanyang s proposed mark? (1) Ownership by prior use [17] North Face s appeal centres around the statutory concept of ownership of its trade mark by use. These principles, upon which we will elaborate, apply: (a) Only the person claiming to be the owner of the mark can register it. (b) A person cannot claim to be the owner of the mark if another person has previously used that mark. (c) Another person has previously used that mark if it was used as a trade mark and the use was public. (a) Ownership, use and registration [18] Rights of ownership are governed by s 32 which provides: 32 Application: how made (1) A person claiming to be the owner of a trade mark may, on payment of the prescribed fee (if any), apply in the prescribed manner (if any) for the registration of the trade mark At 414. HC decision, above n 3, at [39]. At [40].
7 [19] The explanatory note to a 2005 amendment Bill reveals the words claiming to be the owner were added in order to clarify that it is the owner of the trade mark who applies for its registration. 22 In turn, owner is now defined, in s 5(1), in the following way: owner, (d) in relation to an unregistered trade mark, means the person who owns all of the rights in the mark [20] The Trade Marks Act 1953 referred to a proprietor rather than an owner. However, the High Court has accepted, 23 and we agree, that proprietorship is equivalent to its newer counterpart, ownership. Academic commentary adds that it is generally accepted that the principles applicable to a valid claim to proprietorship under the 1953 Act continue to apply to ownership in respect of the 2002 Act. 24 Thus decisions under the old Act (including this Court s most relevant decision in Aqua Technics) 25 apply directly to this appeal. [21] The applicant for registration carries the onus of proving ownership. 26 As a matter of interpretation, a person claiming to be the owner must justify its claim and establish its right. 27 Accordingly, the applicant should be in possession of a proprietary right which if questioned can be substantiated. 28 [22] In order to establish ownership, the applicant must establish that it is the first person to use the mark in New Zealand; 29 and that, if challenged, there is no prior use by another party. 30 Counsel diverge on what constitutes use in this context. As we have noted above at [16], proof of use requires two qualifying elements Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) 2005 (249 1) (explanatory note) at 12. Chettleburgh v Seduce Group Australia Pty Ltd [2012] NZHC 2563 at [47] [49]. Ian Finch (ed) James and Wells Intellectual Property Law in New Zealand (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2012) at 417. Aqua Technics Pool and Spa Centre New Zealand Ltd v Aqua-Tech Ltd [2007] NZCA 90. Hi-Bred Corn Company v Hy-Line Chicks Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NZLR 50 (CA) at 61, following Polaroid Corp v Hannaford & Burton Ltd [1975] 1 NZLR 566 (CA) at 569. North Shore Toy Co Ltd v Charles L Stevenson Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 562 (SC) at 571. Re Vitamins Ltd s Application [1956] RPC 1 (Ch) at 12,; Chettleburgh, above n 23, at [33]. Aqua Technics, above n 25, at [12] [18]. Aqua Technics, above n 25, at [12] [18].
8 [23] One qualifying element is that the use must be public. 31 In this respect the threshold is low; a single use may suffice. 32 It is irrelevant that the user s mark is not known to ultimate purchasers provided a retailer or distributor has that knowledge. Evidence of marketing a product in New Zealand is sufficient. The legal position is summarised in this passage from the Laws of New Zealand: 33 The use need not be sufficient to establish a reputation in New Zealand. While the issue is a question of fact, as little as one order for sale and dispatch of goods by the foreign trader to New Zealand, or an offer to trade in the goods, such as an advertisement of the goods after a decision to offer the goods in New Zealand, can be sufficient to show proprietorship of the trade mark in New Zealand. [24] Mr Warburton submits that the law requires more to establish public use; and that a single use is not necessarily enough, relying on the proposition that in a rare case the use may be so inconsequential that it should be ignored as minimal. 34 [25] We disagree. In Mr Warburton s submission, use in a catalogue without evidence of a sale does not satisfy the public use test. However, the test is use, not sale. We repeat that the threshold is low. Use of a mark in an advertisement of goods constitutes a use for this purpose because it is a common method of indicating that certain goods are available for sale. 35 As this Court found in Aqua Technics, a catalogue advertising a swimming pool in the context of the evidence in that case was sufficient to establish ownership. 36 [26] North Face relied upon its Fall 2007 catalogue together with some invoices to prove its use of both the composite and S device marks for goods. The catalogue advertised three different styles of gloves or mittens bearing the S device mark. Collins J found that the catalogue was distributed in New Zealand. 37 Mr Warburton challenges that finding. He points out that North Face has not provided primary Aqua Technics, above n 25, at [17]. Aqua Technics, above n 25, at [46] and Thunderbird Products Corp v Thunderbird Marine Products Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 592 at 602. Laws of New Zealand Intellectual Property: Trade Marks (online ed) at [38] (footnotes omitted). Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 184, (2007) 164 FCR 506 [Colorado (FCAFC)] at [5]. Malibu Boats West Inc v Catanese (2001) 51 IPR 134 (FCA) at [31] [34]. Aqua Technics, above n 25, at [20], [43] and [54]. HC decision, above n 3, at [32].
9 evidence of the date or extent of distribution of the catalogues. In the absence of that evidence, he submits, the Court should draw an adverse inference. [27] We agree with the Judge. An employee of North Face s New Zealand distributor, Ms Murray, gave evidence in a statement before the Assistant Commissioner of supply of some pairs of mittens in New Zealand on or before 30 October While the invoices do not prove that the mittens supplied by North Face were imprinted with the S device mark, they do show sales of other products contained within the catalogue which also featured North Face s marks. A reasonable inference can be drawn that the goods supplied were those advertised in the Fall 2007 catalogue. [28] Ms Murray also referred to the Fall 2007 catalogue that was distributed in New Zealand. Mr Warburton submitted that Ms Murray s evidence contains many defects and omissions, making it unsafe and unreliable. However, Ms Murray was not cross-examined, from which we can infer that Sanyang accepted the truth of her evidence of distribution, however brief it was. [29] Moreover, as Mr Arthur points out, the catalogue was clearly intended for use in this country because it listed North Face s New Zealand sales offices. The reasonable inference is that it would have been promptly distributed here at the time of publication, contemporaneously with the products shown in it becoming available for sale that is, September or October Accordingly, we agree with Collins J that North Face has proved distribution of the catalogue in New Zealand before 22 January [30] The other qualifying element of use is that the mark must be used in relation to goods to indicate a connection in a course of trade between the goods and the owner. 38 Mr Warburton submits that North Face did not use the S device mark as a trade mark for the purpose of indicating the necessary degree of connection. That is because the evidence of use of the mark on the mittens is so small that it is extremely difficult to see. 38 Aqua Technics, above n 25, at [21].
10 [31] However, we are satisfied from our own examination of the catalogue that North Face s S device mark is clearly displayed on at least three pairs of gloves. Additionally, we are satisfied the company used the composite mark in the catalogue to advertise a range of other goods including jackets, pants, ski suits, vests and gloves. The presence of the words Summit Series and the S device mark where used in catalogues shows a connection between the goods and North Face. [32] The real issue in this context, to which we shall return, is whether North Face s S device mark was ever used as a mark in its own right for apparel other than gloves and mittens. (b) The extent of North Face s ownership [33] The question is then whether North Face s ownership is limited to its S device mark for gloves and mittens. Or does it, as Mr Arthur submits, extend to the other items advertised in the catalogue because the composite mark includes the S device? [34] To succeed in that proposition, North Face must establish that its use of the composite mark gives it ownership of the S device mark for all items in the extended class 25 category of apparel. By this means North Face seeks to use its S device mark alone as the comparator with Sanyang s mark. North Face claims the composite mark is a compilation of two separate marks; its use of the composite mark is, it says, actually a use of the two separate components as well. An adverse answer to that proposition would severely limit North Face s right of challenge. [35] The test to be applied is settled. A composite mark can comprise the use of an identifiable trade mark provided the mark creates a separate and distinct commercial impression from the other components of the image. 39 The question then is whether it could be said of the separate and distinct mark that it performs a trade mark function. Provided that the two components are not combined in a way that renders the individual marks indistinguishable, the validity of each mark is not 39 Aqua Technics, above n 25, at [38], approving Colorado Group Ltd v Strandbags Group Pty Ltd (No 2) (2006) 69 IPR 281 (FCA) at [8]. This Colorado decision itself cited BP plc v Woolworths Ltd (2004) 212 ALR 79 (FCA) at [64].
11 affected. 40 So it is possible, Mr Arthur submits, for North Face s S device mark to stand alone as a trade mark notwithstanding that it is used in conjunction with its Summit Series word mark. [36] Both counsel cited authorities 41 but they were decided on their facts. The only material assistance they provide is their affirmation of the legal test which we have already identified. Determination of this question in the present appeal is ultimately a matter of impression based upon proven evidence. [37] Contrary to Collins J, we are satisfied based on our own assessment that the component parts of the composite mark are not divisible. However, we do agree with the Judge that the words Summit Series anchor the composite mark with the words emphasised by the mountain peak image created by the inner lines of the S device, which form into an apex. 42 In other words, as the Assistant Commissioner found, the words Summit Series give the S device context by implying that the centre of the device is a summit, the incomplete circle of which the summit forms the centre. 43 That could give the impression of a highly stylised S, possibly standing for either or both of Summit or Series. 44 The S device does not operate separately. [38] We are not satisfied that the device creates a separate and distinct commercial impression from the words Summit Series where they appear below. (c) Same kind of thing [39] This conclusion leads us to Mr Arthur s fallback submission that North Face s ownership of the S device mark for gloves and mittens extends to ownership of the mark for all items in class 25 on the ground that they are the same kind of thing. 45 Collins J agreed (obiter) with that submission Phillip Morris Products SA v Marlboro Canada [2010] FC 1099 at [217]. Including The Coca-Cola Co v Frucor Soft Drinks Ltd [2013] NZHC 3282 at [102] [106] and Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2014] FSR 4 (ECJ) at [24]. HC decision, above n 3, at [44]. IPONZ decision, above n 2, at [32]. IPONZ decision, above n 2, at [32]. In Re Hicks Trade Mark (1897) 22 VLR 636 (SC) at 640. At [45] [48].
12 [40] In reliance on English authority, 47 Mr Arthur submits that the appropriate test for determining whether two products are the same kind of thing should be reformulated. He says the proper touchstone is to inquire what is a fair description which will be used by the average consumer, or by the trade, 48 of the products for which the proprietor has used the mark. Mr Arthur accepts that the underlying policy, both statutory and at common law, is to ensure that rights of ownership are not unreasonably narrowed or unduly wide. [41] Mr Arthur s primary submission is based on the premise that North Face s first use of its S device mark extended to mittens, gloves, jackets, pants, vests and ski suits. He says the average consumer or member of the trade would define these items collectively as clothing, entitling North Face s S device mark to protection in relation to all items in class 25. [42] While we accept that a right of registration is not limited precisely to goods or services on which the mark has been used, and that a reasonable generalisation is appropriate, 49 we agree with Ms Warburton that Mr Arthur s reformulation of the test is unduly wide. She correctly submits that Mr Arthur s proposed test has never been applied in ownership cases. In that context the only variation allowed between goods that can be said to be the same kind of thing is in size, shape or name. 50 [43] In our judgment North Face s ownership of its S device mark must be restricted to other goods which are essentially identical to mittens and gloves. The fact that those two items are specifically identified along with the other items in class 25 does not answer the point. Identification of items within a single wider generic category does not mean they are the same kind of thing. All the items within class 25 are not essentially identical: for example, it could not be said that mittens are the same kind of thing as swimwear or coveralls. At best, it could only be said that these items fall within the general category of apparel Animal Trade Mark [2003] 3 EWHC 1589 (Ch) at [19]. Mr Arthur relied on Sky Network Television Ltd v Skyfiber Inc [2012] NZHC 3559 at [26] for this additional element. However, that case was determined in the different statutory context of revocation for non-use of a registered trade mark. Advantage Group Ltd v Advantage Computers Ltd [2002] 3 NZLR 741 (CA) at [21]. Colorado (FCAFC), above n 34, at [14].
13 [44] The statutory framework also supports Ms Warburton. A person claiming to be the owner who wishes to register the mark must register it for use in respect of particular goods. 51 More particularly, the Commissioner is unable to register a trade mark for all goods and services included in a class unless the specification is justified by the use of the sign. 52 For all these reasons, this aspect of North Face s appeal must therefore fail. (2) North Face s ownership of Sanyang s mark [45] The second major issue is whether North Face is the true owner of Sanyang s mark. Collins J s finding that North Face owned its S device mark in New Zealand for gloves and mittens prior to Sanyang s registration application is not decisive. 53 However, our finding that North Face s ownership of the mark is restricted to those two items limits materially the arguable scope of the company s opposition and gives some perspective to what is now in narrow contention between the parties. [46] Mr Arthur accepts that the test applied by the Assistant Commissioner and Collins J of whether the two marks are the same or substantially identical is appropriate where the Court is considering identical marks, often because one party has selected a trade mark used overseas by another party. [47] However, on appeal Mr Arthur seeks to introduce a variation on that test for the facts of this case. He submits that Sanyang does not own its proposed mark for class 25 items because it incorporates or subsumes North Face s S device mark and for that reason the former is substantially identical. He says that the test is satisfied by a visual and conceptual comparison. If the marks are identical, the first mark has inevitably been taken. But, where the marks are not completely identical, the proper inquiry is whether the property has been taken. In argument he accepted a gloss to the effect that property would not be taken to the extent that it was unrecognisable within the proposed mark; the use of the incorporated mark had to be apparent Trade Marks Act, s 32(1). Section 32(2). HC decision, above n 3, at [22] [35].
14 [48] Mr Arthur s submission is significant because it represents a substantial departure from North Face s case as previously argued. As noted, 54 its original opposition to Sanyang s application was based on six grounds. It elected not to pursue before the Assistant Commissioner the particular grounds that Sanyang s proposed mark would cause confusion or it was identical or similar to North Face s mark or an essential element of it. North Face s argument was limited to the ground that Sanyang did not own the mark because of North Face s prior use of it. On an appeal against the registration of a trade mark, no further grounds are permitted except with leave other than those stated by an opponent. 55 There is nothing on the record to suggest that North Face was given leave to expand on its grounds. [49] It is not clear to us how North Face nevertheless centred its argument in opposition before the Assistant Commissioner and Collins J on applying the Shell comparative test, 56 requiring a determination of whether the marks were the same or substantially identical. Nor is it clear why we should accept a reformulation of that test based on the concept of taking. [50] In our judgment there is a short answer to Mr Arthur s submission. It is that North Face has failed to prove that its prior use of the S device mark gave it ownership of Sanyang s mark; that is, that it owned the identical mark and all the rights in it which Sanyang applied to register. Indeed, given his reformulated test, Mr Arthur did not attempt to make out this proposition. His argument was focused on the default position that the two marks were not completely identical. [51] We are satisfied that Mr Arthur s proposed test is not only contrary to the plain words of the statute but is unsupported by authority. In an opposition based on s 32 of the Act, the enquiry is not whether Sanyang s mark apparently took, included, incorporated or absorbed North Face s S device mark. It is simply whether Sanyang owns its mark, by which we mean an identical mark. [52] The statutory test of ownership requires Sanyang to establish that it possesses all the proprietary rights in its mark. In determining whether the company satisfied See above at [11]. Trade Marks Act, s 172(3)(a). Shell Company of Australia, above n 18.
15 that requirement, it is most significant that North Face abandoned before the Assistant Commissioner its grounds of opposition that (a) Sanyang s proposed mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion or (b) was identical or similar to North Face s mark or a central element of it. North Face s challenge was instead limited to the ground of ownership by virtue of prior use, a ground which we have rejected. It would be contrary to the statutory scheme and allow North Face unreasonably wide grounds of challenge if it could nevertheless now raise a ground of substantial identity to deny Sanyang s right of ownership. In the absence of any other valid ground of opposition we accept that Sanyung has satisfied its statutory burden of showing that it owns all the rights in its proposed mark. [53] We add that, even if it is still open to North Face to rely on the test of substantial identity as a means of challenging Sanyang s claim to ownership of its proposed mark, and if contrary to our earlier finding the two components of North Face s composite mark can be uncoupled, we endorse Collins J s findings based on a visual comparison of Sanyang s proposed mark and the S device mark. Leaving aside the Judge s reliance on differences in colour, which Mr Arthur challenges but which we need not decide, we endorse the following findings: 57 Visual comparison (3) The visual layout of the two trade marks also provides a significant point of difference between the two trade marks: (a) (b) the Sanyang trade mark is designed to be used so that the central part of the device gives the impression of an arrow moving from a left to right direction. by contrast, The North Face device mark is designed to represent the image of a mountain peak. When viewed from the angle at which it is designed to be seen, The North Face device mark is not substantially similar to the Sanyang trade mark. 57 HC decision, above n 3, at [42] [43].
16 Conceptual comparison (4) There are significant conceptual differences between the two trade marks: (a) (b) the Sanyang trade mark does have a metallic appearance that is reminiscent of the type of badge that one might expect to see on a vehicle. One can see that the Sanyang mark is an evolution of the arrow concept that underpinned the trade mark it used between 1954 and by contrast, The North Face device mark depicts a mountain peak that is clean and pristine. Side by side comparison [43] Even if the approach which I have taken towards assessing the two trade marks is incorrect, and, if the correct approach is to adhere strictly to a side by side comparison, then I would reach exactly the same conclusion. When compared side by side, I believe that the visual differences between the two trade marks results in a conclusion that the two trade marks are not substantially identical. [54] In argument Mr Arthur did not attempt to challenge these findings, preferring instead to rely on his reformulated test which we have rejected. It follows that this ground of challenge to the decision must fail. We add on the substantially identical test that in our judgment the three dimensional and metallic features of Sanyang s mark are reminiscent of the automobile industry. By contrast North Face s S device mark represents a mountain peak and its two dimensional, simpler appearance is reminiscent of mountain conditions for which its products are suited. [55] To this conclusion we add two points. One is that if we had found for North Face on this ground we would have given Sanyang leave to amend its application, to limit its mark to class 25 clothing excluding gloves and mittens. 58 The other is to add our endorsement of Collins J s obiter finding that on a comparison of North Face s composite mark and Sanyang s proposed mark: [44] North Face is on even weaker ground when a comparison is made between the Sanyang trade mark and North Face s device and word trade mark. The words Summit Series which appear at the foot of the device section of the device and word trade mark clearly anchor the trade mark. This layout of The North Face device and word trade mark re-emphasises the 58 Trade Marks Act, s 38(1).
17 Summary mountain peak image which North Face is conveying with its device and word trade mark. The North Face device and word trade mark, is, in my assessment quite different from the Sanyang trade mark for the reasons explained by the Assistant Commissioner in her decision. I would accordingly endorse the Assistant Commissioner s decision when she concluded that the Sanyang trade mark and The North Face device and word trade mark are not substantially similar. [56] In summary we are satisfied that: (a) North Face has established ownership by prior use of its S device mark for gloves and mittens prior to the date of Sanyang s application for registration of its proposed mark. (b) North Face s ownership of its S device mark for gloves and mittens does not extend to ownership of the same mark for other items of apparel within class 25. (c) North Face has also established ownership by prior use of its composite mark for other items of apparel but its composite mark is not divisible and the S device mark does not operate as a separate component. (d) In the absence of proof that its S device mark was identical to Sanyang s proposed mark, North Face could not oppose Sanyang s claim to ownership of its mark. (e) Even if a test of substantial identity was nevertheless arguable, North Face s S device and Sanyang s proposed mark are not substantially identical. (f) The Assistant Commissioner, upheld by Collins J, was correct to grant Sanyang s application for ownership of its proposed mark.
18 Result [57] The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed. [58] In substance Sanyang has succeeded. However, our finding that North Face used one of its trade marks on some items means Sanyang s cross appeal has failed. It is appropriate in these circumstances to award Sanyang a reduced figure for costs. North Face is ordered to pay 50 per cent of Sanyang s costs on a Band A basis for a standard appeal together with usual disbursements. Solicitors: A J Park Law, Wellington for Appellant Acacia Law, Wellington for Respondent
ICE SA (formerly named TKS s.a.) Appellant. Ellen France, Stevens and Wild JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA740/2012 [2013] NZCA 654 BETWEEN AND ICE SA (formerly named TKS s.a.) Appellant SWATCH AG (SWATCH SA) (SWATCH LTD) Respondent Hearing: 26 November 2013 Court: Counsel:
More informationCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Appellant. PATTY TZU CHOU LIN Respondent. Harrison, Cooper and Asher JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA308/2017 [2018] NZCA 38 BETWEEN AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Appellant PATTY TZU CHOU LIN Respondent Hearing: 7 February 2018 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison,
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Zappia v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCAFC 185 Appeal from: Zappia v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 390 File number: NSD 709 of 2017 Judges: ROBERTSON, PAGONE AND BROMWICH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA94/05 [2007] NZCA 61. STICHTING LODESTAR Appellant. William Young P, O Regan and Robertson JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA94/05 [2007] NZCA 61 BETWEEN AND STICHTING LODESTAR Appellant AUSTIN, NICHOLS & CO. INC. Respondent Hearing: 30 November 2006 Court: Counsel: William Young P, O
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481. POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481 BETWEEN AND AND POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant LINDA STREET Second Appellant NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED Respondent
More informationNothing eases for Maltesers on appeal
Nothing eases for Maltesers on appeal 28 FEBRUARY, 2010 By Joy Atacador Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 174 While the get-up or trade dress of a product can be protected by
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 78/2014 [2014] NZSC 197. Appellant. Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
NOTE: THE ORDER MADE BY THE HIGH COURT ON 28 MAY 2012 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE PARTIES' NAMES AND ANY PARTICULARS THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THE RESPONDENT (INCLUDING HER NAME, OCCUPATION, EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
More informationIAN CHARLES SCHULER First Appellant. Harrison, White and Venning JJ. D G Hayes for Appellants C W Grenfell and B J Norling for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA27/2013 [2014] NZCA 91 BETWEEN IAN CHARLES SCHULER First Appellant INDEPENDENT LIVESTOCK 2010 LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Second Appellant AND DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN
More informationLAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent. Ellen France, Randerson and French JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA731/2013 [2014] NZCA 209 BETWEEN AND LAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 12 May 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, Randerson
More informationKENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent. Randerson, Winkelmann and Keane JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA64/2014 [2015] NZCA 60 BETWEEN AND KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 February 2015
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 010 Reference No. SSA 009/17 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of XXXX against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL
More informationC.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant. Winkelmann, Brewer and Toogood JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA637/2015 [2017] NZCA 3 BETWEEN AND C.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant WASIM SARWAR KETAN, FARKAH ROHI KETAN AND WASIM KETAN TRUSTEE COMPANY
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240. OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240 BETWEEN AND OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 24 May 2018
More informationJOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application
More informationTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent. J K Scragg and P H Higbee for Appellant U R Jagose and D L Harris for Respondent
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA122/2013 [2013] NZCA 410 BETWEEN AND GARY BRIDGFORD AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA BRIDGFORD OF WHANGAREI Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY
More informationAppellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ. A Shaw for Appellant A M Powell and E J Devine for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA600/2015 [2016] NZCA 420 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann
More informationBRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant. MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Asher J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA211/2016 [2016] NZCA 636 BETWEEN AND BRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent Hearing: 20 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Asher, Heath
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239 BETWEEN AND QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED Appellant ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent Hearing:
More informationAppellant. YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA58/2017 [2017] NZCA 280 BETWEEN AND Y&P NZ LIMITED Appellant YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents Hearing: 11 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Mallon and
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-694 [2015] NZHC 1417 BETWEEN AND E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 April 2015 Appearances:
More informationJANET ELSIE LOWE Respondent. J C Holden and M J R Conway for Appellants P Cranney and A McInally for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
- IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA169/2015 [2016] NZCA 369 BETWEEN DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH First Appellant CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Second
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014. WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED TRADING AS "GO WELLINGTON" Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED
More informationDECISION. "1. The approval of Application Serial No is contrary to Section 4(d) of Republic Act No. 166, as amended.
WILFRO P. LUMINLUN, } INTER PARTES CASE NO. 3704 Opposer, } Opposition to: } Application Serial No. 70197 -versus- } Filed: November 29, 1989 } Trademark: "Bar Design (with the } Colors Blue, Red, } and
More informationAND. Hearing at Dunedin on 27 March For Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development: M Sperring and E. Rutherford.
[2017] NZSSAA 026 Reference No. SSA 028/16 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of Dunedin against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 367. IN THE MATTER the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV-2016-425-000117 [2017] NZHC 367 IN THE MATTER the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the bankruptcy of ABRAHAM NICOLAAS VAN
More information- and - TRATHENS TRAVEL SERVICES LIMITED
Case No: 9PF00857 IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT Leeds Combined Court The Courthouse 1 Oxford Row Leeds LS1 3BG Date: 9 th July 2010 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL Between : LEROY MAKUWATSINE - and
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69. SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69 BETWEEN AND AND SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE A OF THE APPLICATION (THE
More informationWORLDWIDE NZ LLC Respondent. Memoranda: 29 October 2014 and 14 November A C Sorrell and S L Robertson for Appellant M J Fisher for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA834/2011 [2016] NZCA 282 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND VENUE AND EVENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Appellant WORLDWIDE NZ LLC Respondent Memoranda: 29 October 2014 and 14 November
More informationCraddockMurrayNeumann L A W Y E R S P T Y L T D ABN Case Notes. In This Issue. Our People
CraddockMurrayNeumann L A W Y E R S P T Y L T D ABN 57 166 457 905 Case Notes December 2016 In This Issue MNWA Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Bywater Investments & Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner
More informationSHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA Applicant. LSG SKY CHEFS NZ LIMITED Respondent. D J Goddard QC for Applicant C M Meechan QC for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA616/2015 [2016] NZCA 21 BETWEEN AND SHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA Applicant LSG SKY CHEFS NZ LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 15 February 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild,
More informationHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ PETER JAMES SHAFRON APPELLANT AND AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION RESPONDENT Shafron v Australian
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000006 [2013] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND CIRCLE K LIMITED Appellant CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 11 September 2013 Appearances:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479. Appellant. Hammond, Chambers and Arnold JJ. Judgment: 1 November 2007 at 11.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479 BETWEEN AND ROCHIS LIMITED Appellant ZACHERY ANDREW CHAMBERS, JULIAN DAVID CHAMBERS, JOCELYN ZELPHA CHAMBERS AND KIMBERLY FAITH CHAMBERS Respondents
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZEmpC 51 EMPC 328/2017. IBRAHIM KOCATÜRK First Applicant. GÜLER KOCATÜRK Second Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 51 EMPC 328/2017 an application for leave to extend time to file a challenge IBRAHIM KOCATÜRK First Applicant GÜLER KOCATÜRK
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
More informationDAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE
More informationProcess and methods Published: 18 February 2014 nice.org.uk/process/pmg18
Guide to the technology appraisal aisal and highly specialised technologies appeal process Process and methods Published: 18 February 2014 nice.org.uk/process/pmg18 NICE 2014. All rights reserved. Contents
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 21/2007 [2007] NZSC 103. STICHTING LODESTAR Respondent. Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 21/2007 [2007] NZSC 103 BETWEEN AND AUSTIN, NICHOLS & CO INC Appellant STICHTING LODESTAR Respondent Hearing: 17 October 2007 Court: Counsel: Elias CJ, Blanchard,
More informationREPORTABLE Case No: 382/99. In the matter between: PEREGRINE GROUP (PTY) LTD. and. PEREGRINE HOLDINGS LTD and OTHERS Respondents
REPORTABLE Case No: 382/99 In the matter between: PEREGRINE GROUP (PTY) LTD and OTHERS Appellants and PEREGRINE HOLDINGS LTD and OTHERS Respondents Coram: HEFER ACJ, HARMS AND NAVSA JJA Heard: 7 MAY 2001
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015 Prepared on 17 th March Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT
IAC-FH-AR/V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/52919/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015
More informationORDER PO Appeal PA Peterborough Regional Health Centre. June 30, 2016
ORDER PO-3627 Appeal PA15-399 Peterborough Regional Health Centre June 30, 2016 Summary: The appellant, a journalist, sought records relating to the termination of the employment of several employees of
More informationTB (Student application variation of course effect) Jamaica [2006] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 28 February 2006 On 06 April 2006.
TB (Student application variation of course effect) Jamaica [2006] UKAIT 00034 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 28 February 2006 On
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04 BETWEEN AND JEFFREY GEORGE LOPAS AND LORRAINE ELIZABETH MCHERRON Appellants THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 November 2005 Court:
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under
More informationDecision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 July 2010, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Jon Newman
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE SOUTHERN LIFE ASSOCIATION LIMITED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) CASE NO 665/92 In the matter between COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE Appellant versus SOUTHERN LIFE ASSOCIATION LIMITED Respondent CORAM: HOEXTER,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2016 [2016] NZSC 107. DAVID CHARLES BROWNE First Applicant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2016 [2016] NZSC 107 BETWEEN DAVID CHARLES BROWNE First Applicant DAVID BROWNE CONTRACTORS LIMITED AND DAVID BROWNE MECHANICAL LIMITED Second Applicants AND DAVID
More informationAND BEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY. Hearing at Wellington on 20 June For Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development:
[2017] NZSSAA 037 Reference No. SSA 151/16 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of XXXX against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL
More informationBEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT In the Matter of: ) ) HOLIDAY ALASKA, INC. ) d/b/a Holiday, ) ) Respondent.
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 25 July 2014 On 11 August 2014 Oral determination given following hearing. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30481/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 25 July 2014 On 11 August 2014 Oral determination given
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 152 EMPC 323/2015. Plaintiff. AND MARRA CONSTRUCTION (2004) LIMITED Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN [2016] NZEmpC 152 EMPC 323/2015 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority FREDRICK PRETORIUS Plaintiff AND MARRA CONSTRUCTION
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant. P Chambers for Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2009-404-6292 BETWEEN AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 2 February 2010 Counsel: Judgment:
More informationWORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS46/AB/RW 21 July 2000 (00-2990) Original: English BRAZIL EXPORT FINANCING PROGRAMME FOR AIRCRAFT RECOURSE BY CANADA TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU AB-2000-3 Report of the Appellate
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 387. JONATHON VAN KLEEF Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2012-485-2135 [2013] NZHC 387 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY AT
More informationSUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA499/2014 [2014] NZCA 550 BETWEEN AND SUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTD Respondent Hearing: 23 October 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Appellant. DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA351/2014 [2014] NZCA 611 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Appellant DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD Respondent Hearing: 30 October
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC GARTH ERICH LECHNER Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2013-485-22 [2013] NZHC 1166 GARTH ERICH LECHNER Appellant v NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 21 May 2013 Counsel: D Ewen for Appellant S
More informationWHEN A FALSE STATEMENT VITIATES A CLAIM:
The Law Bulletin Volume 11, April 20 19 WHEN A FALSE STATEMENT VITIATES A CLAIM: Pinder v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company Part I Introduction Although the reciprocal duty of good faith is the legal principle
More informationDIVIDEND STRIPPING SCHEMES: TOWARDS A BROADER JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION. Abstract
DIVIDEND STRIPPING SCHEMES: TOWARDS A BROADER JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION Abstract At issue before the Full Federal Court in Lawrence v FCT was the scope of the operation of s 177E(1) ITAA 1936, dealing with
More informationCARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME Appellant ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2006 Court: Counsel: William
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 October 2006 On 10 January Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE WARR. Between. and
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal SA (Work permit refusal not appealable) Ghana [2007] UKAIT 00006 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 30 October 2006 On 10 January 2007
More informationPage 1 of 11 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE (Sixth Chamber) 24 April 2007(*) (Appeal Figurative mark
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZJGA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 787 MIGRATION appeal from decision of Federal Magistrate discretion to adjourn hearing on application for judicial
More informationWild, Simon France and Asher JJ. G J Kohler QC and R E Catley for Appellant C L Bryant and G J Luen for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA444/2014 [2014] NZCA 564 BETWEEN AND WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Appellant COMPLETE SITEWORKS COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 11 November 2014 Court:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: RJK Enterprises P/L v Webb & Anor [2006] QSC 101 PARTIES: FILE NO: 2727 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: RJK ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 055 443 466 (applicant)
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/02277/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 2 September 2014 On 19 th January 2015.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/02277/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 2 September 2014 On 19 th January 2015 Before Deputy
More informationSEC overhauls mining property disclosure regime
SEC Update January 16, 2019 This is a commercial communication from Hogan Lovells. See note below. SEC overhauls mining property disclosure regime On October 31, 2018, the SEC released comprehensive property
More informationTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. - and
[2017] UKUT 177 (TCC) Appeal number: UT/2016/0011 VAT input tax absence of purchase invoices discretion to accept alternative evidence whether national rule rendered exercise of rights under European law
More informationSyed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SPENCER. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT 00144 IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 18 th January 2013 Determination Promulgated Before
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On: 19 October 2015 On: 06 November Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/17041/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Columbus House, Determination Promulgated Newport On: 19 October 2015 On: 06 November 2015 Before
More informationAustralian court rules in favor of tax authorities in Chevron transfer pricing case
Australian court rules in favor of tax authorities in Chevron transfer pricing case The Australian Federal Court on 23 October issued its much anticipated decision in Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV UNDER the Companies Act BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2008-404-000161 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant JAMES WILLIAM PIPER Respondent AND UNDER the Companies Act
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: APRIL 30, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ORDERED PUBLISHED: JUNE 25, 2010; 10:00 A.M. Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000535-MR TRILLIUM INDUSTRIES, INC. APPELLANT
More informationBefore: SIR TERENCE ETHERTON, MR LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY and LADY JUSTICE SHARP Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 78 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT MR JUSTICE WALKER CO/4607/2014 Before: Case No: C1/2015/2746
More informationThe names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 261/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Standards Committee BETWEEN OL Applicant AND MR
More informationVAT nature of business were taxable supplies made?- no decisions to refuse input tax claims and de-register Appellant for VAT purposes confirmed.
[14] UKFTT 2 (TC) TC03242 Appeal number: TC/12/170 VAT nature of business were taxable supplies made?- no decisions to refuse input tax claims and de-register Appellant for VAT purposes confirmed. FIRST-TIER
More informationEsso Standard (Inter-America) Inc. v. J. W. Enterprises et al., [1963] S.C.R. 144
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 2 (April 1965) Article 10 Esso Standard (Inter-America) Inc. v. J. W. Enterprises et al., [1963] S.C.R. 144 M. L. D. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj
More informationNELSON DANCE: THE HIGH COURT CONFIRMS THAT 100% BPR MAY APPLY WHERE THE VALUE TRANSFERRED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRANSFERS OF ASSETS USED IN A BUSINESS
NELSON DANCE: THE HIGH COURT CONFIRMS THAT 100% BPR MAY APPLY WHERE THE VALUE TRANSFERRED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRANSFERS OF ASSETS USED IN A BUSINESS by Marika Lemos Business property relief ( BPR ) has
More informationCITATION: H.M. The Queen in Right of Ontario v. Axa Insurance Canada, 2017 ONSC 3414 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO
CITATION: H.M. The Queen in Right of Ontario v. Axa Insurance Canada, 2017 ONSC 3414 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-553910 DATE: 20170601 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O.
More informationRAPID CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent. Harrison, White and Priestley JJ. R P Coltman and A C N de Hamel for Appellants B D Gustafson for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA76/2013 [2013] NZCA 489 BETWEEN AND VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND HENRY DAVID LEVIN Appellants RAPID CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 2 October 2013 Court:
More informationBOARD OF BENDIGO REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION V BARCLAY
BOARD OF BENDIGO REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION V BARCLAY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SHANE MARSHALL * & AMANDA CAVANOUGH** I INTRODUCTION On 7 September 2012, the High Court of Australia
More informationVICTORIAN COUNTY COURT SPEED CAMERA CASE
VICTORIAN COUNTY COURT SPEED CAMERA CASE Summary On the 20th October 2011, an appeal was heard in the Victorian County Court. The case of Agar v Baker was heard by Judge Allen. This case involved a mobile
More informationMining and the Environment. Ashley Stafford
Mining and the Environment Adani Proceedings - Full Court Appeal Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Minister for the Environment and Energy and Anor [2017] FCAFC 134 Ashley Stafford Timeline of proceedings
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC ASTRID RUTH CLARK Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2013-404-004873 [2014] NZHC 1611 BETWEEN AND ASTRID RUTH CLARK Appellant REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 2004) Respondent Hearing: 13 June 2014
More informationBEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 02 ACA 10/13 IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 of an appeal pursuant to s.107
More informationAli (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI.
IAC-FH-GJ-V6 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 August 2012 Determination Promulgated Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000048 [2013] NZHC 2234 BETWEEN AND ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 August 2013 Appearances:
More informationCONCERNING CONCERNING BETWEEN. DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 279/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN VJ Applicant
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN. Between AASTHA JOSHI SWADHIN BATAJOO (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 5 December 2017 On 12 January 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND application for leave to file challenge out of time DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW
More informationADVERTISING SPACE AND ADVERTISING TIME SUPPLIED TO NON- RESIDENTS GST TREATMENT
ADVERTISING SPACE AND ADVERTISING TIME SUPPLIED TO NON- RESIDENTS GST TREATMENT PUBLIC RULING - BR Pub 03/03 Note (not part of ruling): This ruling replaces public ruling BR Pub 00/06, published in Tax
More informationInternational Centre for Dispute Resolution. New gtld String Confusion Panel EXPERT DETERMINATION
International Centre for Dispute Resolution New gtld String Confusion Panel Re: 50 504 00245 13 < Neustar, Inc.>, OBJECTOR and < Charleston Road Registry >, APPLICANT String: The parties EXPERT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 16th December 1999
Privy Council Appeal No. 45 of 1998 Sprints Ltd. Appellant v. (1) Comptroller of Customs and (2) Chipie Design and Signoles S.A. Respondents FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS --------------- JUDGMENT
More information