In Uber Group Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc¹, the High Court of New Zealand dismissed an application for an interim injunction brought by a Northland-based broadband provider, Uber Group Ltd, against the global rideshare giant and its local promotional partner, One New Zealand Group Ltd. 

The decision offers a sharp reminder of the criteria for interim relief in New Zealand and the evidential burden applicants must meet. 

The parties 

Uber Group Limited is a Northland-based company providing broadband services primarily to rural customers.   

Uber Group has registered trade marks that include the term UBER in class 38 for telecommunications.   

Uber New Zealand Technologies Ltd is the New Zealand based subsidiary of the global rideshare and meal delivery business Uber Technologies Inc.  Uber Technologies has registered trade marks including the word UBER and its customer loyalty trade mark UBER ONE in class 35. 

One New Zealand is a telecommunications company that provides telephone and internet services nationwide.   

The issues 

In 2015, Uber Group and Uber Technologies entered a co-existence agreement in recognition of commonality of name.    

In July 2025, Uber Technologies and One NZ launched an ongoing promotional partnership under which the companies promote their own services and those of each other to their customers.   

Central to the causes of action is the connection between a telecommunications company – One NZ – and Uber Technologies; the alleged similarity of  the complained use to Uber Group’s trade marks; the contention a consumer is liable to confuse the signs in relation to telecommunication services and conclude that Uber Technologies is offering telecommunication services; or that Uber Group is partnering with One NZ diluting Uber Group’s trade marks, harming its sales, reputation and goodwill.   

Uber Group applied for an interim injunction:  

Uber Group argued that there was a significant decline in new connections and that it was impossible to put a monetary figure on the lost business and related harm.  

The Three-Part Test for Interim Injunctions 

Justice Downs reaffirmed the orthodox three-limb test, as originally set out in American Cyanamid². 

The threshold is low: the claim must be neither frivolous nor vexatious.  

Despite strong opposition, the Court found Uber Group’s claims—based on trade mark infringement, passing off, and breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986 met this standard. 

This was the decisive factor in the case. The Court undertakes a comparative assessment of the likely harm to each party depending on whether the injunction is granted or refused. In this case, key considerations include: 

The Court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour interim relief. This approach aligns with commentary in McGechan on Procedure³ which emphasizes the flexible and fact-specific nature of this inquiry. 

The Court found that the partnership and Uber Technologies were not offering telecommunications services and was using its own registered trade marks. The overall justice did not support granting an injunction. 

Key Takeaway 

This decision underscores that while the threshold for a “serious issue” is low, applicants must present compelling, causally linked evidence of harm to tip the balance of convenience and overall justice in their favour. Mere brand confusion—especially if in reverse—is not enough. 

For international practitioners, this case is a useful illustration of how New Zealand courts approach interim injunctions in IP disputes, particularly where co-existence agreements and overlapping brand identities are in play. 

An interesting aside with an 'A-eye' to the future 

One of the arguments made by Uber Group in support of its allegations of confusion was that AI-assisted search summaries caused or invited confusion by confusing or conflating the respective companies.  In this case, Justice Downs was not receptive to this argument as the defendant was not in control of the AI systems which made the relevant representations.  This is likely to be an interesting issue to watch going forward given the rise of AI-augmented search services.  Will we see AI-service providers named as co-defendants in the future? 

Elena Szentiványi - November 2025

-----------------------------------------------