SIGN UP TO OUR EZINE
Chiefs v PNG Chiefs: High Court declines to block NRL team’s name
The High Court has refused New Zealand Rugby’s urgent bid to stop the new Papua New Guinea NRL team using the name “PNG Chiefs” in New Zealand, but the dispute is far from over.
A trans-Tasman rivalry is being played out in the courtroom rather than on the field, as Justice Grau put it, and the first round has gone to rugby league.
In a judgment delivered on 19 October 2026, the High Court declined an urgent interim injunction sought by the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) against the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) use of PNG Chiefs, Chiefs, or a similar trade mark in New Zealand, finding that the overall justice of the case did not warrant the urgent restraint of these marks.
Background
The NZRU owns trade mark registrations for the CHIEFS trade mark in New Zealand covering various goods and services including entertainment and sporting services. The mark has been used by the Hamilton based Super Rugby Pacific team since 1996.
The NZRU applied for an urgent interim injunction to stop the ARLC and PNG Chiefs Ltd from using “Chiefs”, “PNG Chiefs” or any confusingly similar sign in New Zealand. The PNG Chiefs, a rugby league team based in Port Moresby Papua New Guinea, are due to join the 1 New Zealand and 16 Australian teams in the National Rugby League (NRL) in 2028. They were scheduled to unveil their logo and jersey in Port Moresby on 21 October.
What the NZRU had to show
An interim injunction is a temporary order made until a full trial can be heard on a legal action. The tests for granting an interim injunction are different to those considered in the full trial. The Court does not consider the full merits of the case. Rather, the Court works through three questions:
- whether there is a serious question to be tried,
- where the balance of convenience lies, and
- where the overall justice of the matter lies.
I discuss how these three questions were considered in this case below:
Is there a serious question to be tried?
NZRU argued that use of use of PNG Chiefs, Chiefs, or a similar mark, is trade mark infringement as the mark is:
- identical to its registered CHIEFS trade marks for the same goods or services.
- similar to its registered trade mark for identical or similar goods/services and likely to deceive or confuse.
NZRU also argued that use of PNG Chiefs, Chiefs, or a similar mark, would breach section 9 of the Fair Trading Act and amount to a breach of the tort of passing off. These require consumer confusion or deception, or misleading conduct.
Justice Grau considered that there might be a serious question to be tried on whether the use of PNG Chiefs, or Chiefs, is identical to the NZRU’s registered CHIEFS mark. That argument rested on “PNG” being a descriptive country name qualifier and on the regular use of “Chiefs” alone. Her Honour expressed that she had difficulty accepting that “PNG” is a qualifier that does not make a difference when it comes before “Chiefs” and signifies where a team is from. Further, based on the evidence, the full name “PNG Chiefs” was used to identify the team before being abbreviated.
Her Honours’ preliminary view was that consumer confusion or deception was unlikely between the two marks, casting doubt on the other causes of action requiring confusion, deception or misleading conduct. In Justice Grau’s view, the teams were clearly distinct: they played different sports in separate competitions.
Where does the balance of convenience lie?
Justice Grau found several factors weighed against the granting of the injunction:
- Delay. The PNG Chiefs name was first announced in October 2025 and the ARLC has been promoting the mark since April 2026. The correspondence between the parties showed that ARLC was never going to change the name, so the NZRU could have moved much earlier. Their tardiness in taking action counted against them.
- Timing of the substantive hearing on the interim injunction. With a substantive hearing available in February or March 2027, and the summer break intervening, the judge did not consider the NZRU would suffer irreversible brand damage in the intervening time.
- The launch. Justice Grau considered that the launch in PNG was likely to proceed regardless: the Court could not stop a launch in another country. Rebranding at this late stage would be “next to impossible”, and the ARLC was at a critical juncture as the new team signed players for a strong start in the 2028 season. Her Honour also rejected the NZRU’s argument that the “horse will have bolted” on 21 October, noting that the name had already been public for about a year.
- Prejudice. The judge contrasted the consequences for each side: if the NZRU ultimately succeeded, it could be compensated for proven damage; an injunction now would leave a fledgling team starting “under a cloud that might be impossible to clear”.
- Undertakings: They ARLC voluntarily undertook that they will:
- take all reasonable steps to refer to the team as the “PNG Chiefs”, not “the Chiefs”, including through their commercial partners
- geo-block PNG Chiefs content on their websites and Facebook pages where feasible. It was noted that Instagram content cannot be geo-blocked
- geo-block relevant parts of NRL.com and the NRL app where feasible, and explore solutions for news articles, which currently cannot be blocked
Justice Grau described the undertakings as a good faith gesture. She also considered that media reporting alone is unlikely to count as use of a trade mark in New Zealand, and that publicity on social media without more may not either.
3. Where does the overall justice of the matter lie?
Based on the factors above, Justice Grau decided that the overall justice lie with declining the urgent interim injunction.
What comes next?
The case involves several layers of relief:
The “urgent interim” application (decided here). The urgency of the 21 October launch made this an “urgent interim” application. An order would last only until the NZRU’s interim injunction application could be fully heard. These applications are decided quickly, often on limited evidence. That is why the judge’s views on the merits were expressed as “very preliminary”.
The full interim injunction hearing (early 2027). At a one-day hearing, likely in February or March 2027, the Court will consider whether to grant an interim injunction lasting until any trade mark proceedings are finally decided.
The substantive proceeding and any final injunction. The trade mark infringement, Fair Trading Act, and passing off claims themselves have not been decided. If the matter goes to a substantive hearing, the NZRU would have to prove its case on the evidence, not just show it is seriously arguable. If it succeeds, the Court can grant remedies including a permanent (or final) injunction restraining the infringing use beyond trial, and damages for proven damage.
Final thoughts
The case reinforces that there is a distinction between having an arguable trade mark infringement claim and having a sufficient basis for an interim injunction. The Court’s assessment of competing risks of harm is likely to be the major consideration in interim injunction proceedings and this is very different to the considerations involved in assessing trade mark infringement, passing off, or Fair Trading Act claims.
The undecided legal questions of whether ARLC’s use of PNG Chiefs, Chiefs or a similar mark amount to trade mark infringement, passing off, or a breach of the Fair Trading Act are relatively narrow. The commercial backdrop is broader, and it helps explain why the NZRU moved so hard.
Rugby union and rugby league compete for the same things: winter sporting attention, sponsorship dollars, broadcast time, and young players. The judgment itself shows how much the two codes overlap. The NRL is an Australasian competition that already includes a New Zealand team and plays matches on both sides of the Tasman. The NZRU told the Court that a sizeable number of the NRL’s millions of social media followers are in New Zealand, suggesting a figure of around 400,000. It also pointed to overlapping seasons, sponsors and potential viewers.
Seen that way, the NZRU’s concern may be less that a fan will buy the wrong jersey or ticket and more about brand ownership at a time when the popularity of rugby league is expanding. A new NRL franchise, backed by the Australian and PNG governments and with a promotional campaign about to begin, will compete for the same audience, players and sponsors. For a rugby union body worried about its place in that market, a rival team taking on one of its better known brand names, even with a “PNG” qualifier, is likely a real irritation.
Justice Grau’s decision suggests the courts will not treat competition between the codes as confusion. Her Honour had more confidence in the “astuteness, and passion” of New Zealand rugby fans than the NZRU did, and noted that the two teams are from different countries, play different sports, and compete in different competitions. However, Justice Grau’s decision does not go into the dilution of NZRU’s Chief brand that will as a result of the ARLC’s use of PNG Chief’s. This is likely to be the subject of further arguments.
Ultimately, if it is decided that the two CHIEFS teams can live alongside each other, the NZRU’s real commercial challenge will be winning the contest for consumer attention.
Zoe Dewhurst - October 2026
