The team is officially launched in Port Moresby tomorrow, but does not join the NRL until 2028.
Despite the major legal setback, NZ Rugby is expected to persist with its trademark fight, with more court action likely early next year.
In her decision, Justice Grau raised doubts that there could be confusion.
A High Court judge says she has confidence in the astuteness and passion of Chiefs rugby fans. Photo / Alyse Wright
“These two teams are clearly distinct. One is from Hamilton, New Zealand and has existed since 1996. The other is from Papua New Guinea, since 2026.
“They play a different sport in a separate competition. I posed the question at the hearing: What would be the confusion? Might a [New Zealand] Chiefs fan buy a ticket for the wrong game, or buy the wrong jersey?
“The latter appeared to be of greater concern to the NZRU. But NZRU’s goodwill and long-term branding would also suggest that the risk of any confusion would be less than NZRU claims.”
She said she had “considerable doubts” that Chiefs rugby fans would accidentally buy Chiefs rugby league jerseys, “or that potential sponsors of the PNG Chiefs will be uncertain about who they are dealing with”.
“I do not accept the NZRU will lose control of its brand as a result of the launch [this week]: I have more confidence in the astuteness – and passion – of New Zealand rugby fans, especially fans of the Chiefs Super Rugby team.”
NZ Rugby and the NRL have been in the High Court over a trademark dispute involving the name Chiefs.
Justice Grau’s judgment has some sporting flourishes.
“New Zealand and Australia share a long history of Trans-Tasman sporting rivalry. In this case, the rivalry is between two different sporting codes and is being played out in the courtroom, not on the field,” she wrote.
She noted NZ Rugby’s concerns that it would suffer “irreparable injury to its intellectual property rights and goodwill if an interim injunction is not granted ahead of the public launch in Port Moresby”.
The ARLC, on the other hand, had noted NZ Rugby had “sat on its hands” for nine months since the PNG Chiefs team name was announced.
“In contrast, they say they have spent time, efforts and resources developing the PNG Chiefs brand and there is no credible or even remote basis for any confusion between the New Zealand Super Rugby team called the Chiefs and a rugby league team from PNG called the PNG Chiefs,” said the judge.
PNG’s prime minister announced the Chiefs name last year after a national competition to choose a team name between December 2024 and October 2025.
Justice Karen Grau. Photo /Linkedin
The judge noted the NRL’s position that the name “reflected the nation’s cultural history of diverse tribal systems that fused into one sovereign nation in 1975.”
In December last year, the ARLC wrote to NZ Rugby, “maintaining its position that use of the name Chiefs by the PNG-based NRL team would not infringe NZRU’s intellectual property rights or mislead Australasian consumers”.
“ARLC advised NZRU to accept the use of the PNG Chiefs name and undertake not to take any steps to oppose it. The NZRU did not respond to the letter,” said the judge.
NZ Rugby told the court there was “much more than a serious question” to be tried as it sought an interim injunction.
“It says it is likely to succeed in making out its claims and there is no credible defence to at least some of those claims,” the judge said.
“The NZRU points to its Chiefs word registration for sporting and entertainment services and says the services associated with the proposed rugby league team are identical or highly similar services.”
NZ Rugby maintained it had the exclusive right to use and license the use of Chiefs in relation to sporting services in New Zealand.
The Chiefs – with All Blacks stars such as Wallace Sititi – have had plenty of Super Rugby success. Photo / Getty
Justice Grau said NZ Rugby also argued that the ARLC was often only using the name “Chiefs” to refer to the PNG Chiefs and that this was intentional.
“It says the NRL’s Facebook and Instagram pages have millions of followers and a sizeable number must be in New Zealand, given the NRL is an Australasian competition.”
New Zealand consumers were also likely to be “misled or deceived” under the Fair Trading Act, and it would cause “irreparable loss to NZRU’s rights in the Chiefs mark and branding”.
The ARLC said New Zealand’s Trade Marks Act required NZ Rugby to establish that the PNG Chiefs was identical to Chiefs, but that PNG clearly distinguished the PNG Chiefs – “just as Kansas City distinguishes the Kansas City Chiefs, Exeter distinguishes the Exeter Chiefs and Kaizer distinguishes the Kaizer Chiefs”.
The judge also summed up the ARLC’s position: “The alternative under s 89(1)(c) requires the NZRU to establish use of a similar sign that is likely to deceive or confuse, but there is no evidence of any confusion, and coverage about PNG Chiefs has reached New Zealand consumers since 2025.
“The ARLC says it is fanciful to suggest that New Zealand consumers ‘in perhaps the most rugby-literate country there is’ could be misled by references to the PNG Chiefs.”
The judge said she had reviewed correspondence between the ARLC/NRL and NZ Rugby.
“… it seems clear to me that the ARLC was never going to back down and change the name of its new team in response to the NZRU’s concerns”.
“Thus it is apparent that NZRU could have moved significantly earlier than it did. Accordingly, I take into account the lateness of the NZRU’s application as a factor that does not support an injunction.”
Justice Grau looked closely at the use of the term “PNG” before the name of the Chiefs.
“I agree that there might be a serious question to be tried [under trademark laws] in respect of the claim that PNG Chiefs is identical to the Chiefs mark that NZRU owns.
“That would be so if NZRU is correct that ‘PNG’ is a qualifier without a difference and ‘Chiefs’ (without the qualifier) is regularly being used in any case.
“But, at this very preliminary stage, I comment that I have difficulty accepting ‘PNG’ is a qualifier that does not make a difference when it comes before ‘Chiefs’ and signifies where a team playing a different sport is from.”
She said that contrary to NZ Rugby’s evidence, it was not apparent that the ‘PNG Chiefs’ and ‘Chiefs’ names were being used interchangeably.
“On my view of the material, it appears significantly more common for ‘PNG Chiefs’ to be used first in reports, before the report goes on to shorten the team reference to ‘Chiefs’. That is not interchangeable use; it is using the full name up front to identify the team being reported on, before abbreviating it.”
She said the High Court could accommodate a full one-day hearing for an interim injunction in February or March next year, “until trade mark proceedings are disposed of”.
“That is relatively soon. And with the summer holiday period intervening, I do not consider that the NZRU will suffer irreversible damage to its brand between now and then. The parties may also move with urgency to obtain a substantive hearing on the trade mark dispute.
“In contrast, the ARLC and the PNG Chiefs are less than a week away from a planned launch of a team jersey and logo. That launch will go ahead regardless of whether an injunction is granted now.
“This court cannot prevent the launch in a different jurisdiction, and I agree it would be ‘next to impossible’ to rebrand the team at this stage.
“It is also a critical juncture for this new team, who is in the process of signing players to make a strong start in the 2028 season.
“I do not consider that the launch [this week] means that ‘the horse will have bolted’, as the NZRU had suggested. That horse is already out and running, as the ARLC says, given the PNG Chiefs name has been in circulation for around a year already. In rugby (or league) terms, the starting whistle has already been blown.”
She said if NZ Rugby ultimately succeeded in its trade mark proceedings, it could be compensated “for any proven damage to its brand”.
“But if I granted an interim injunction now, this fledgling team would be starting its life under a cloud that might be impossible to clear.”
READ THE FULL DECISION HERE
Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.