High Court rejects New Zealand Rugby's urgent bid to block PNG Chiefs name

A New Zealand High Court judge in Wellington refused New Zealand Rugby’s urgent bid for an interim injunction to prevent the NRL’s PNG Chiefs franchise from using the 'Chiefs' name, allowing the PNG franchise to go ahead with a scheduled brand and jersey launch as it prepares to join the NRL in 2028.

The hearing followed New Zealand Rugby’s claim that it has held trademark protections for the Chiefs name since the 1990s and that the PNG franchise’s use of the name — sometimes presented without the 'PNG' qualifier — would cause 'significant confusion and damage.' NZ Rugby’s barrister Earl Gray told the court the PNG Chiefs interchanged 'PNG Chiefs' and 'Chiefs' and warned of adverse sponsorship and brand-control consequences if the NRL expansion team kept the name.

The NRL’s representative, barrister Clive Elliott, said the addition of the geographic label 'PNG' maintained the status quo and that a ruling against the NRL could undercut the expansion side’s recruitment and commercial preparations, which the Sydney Morning Herald said include an expected recruitment drive starting on November 1.

Both outlets note IP Australia previously refused to register the Chiefs trademark for the NRL on grounds of possible brand confusion, a point New Zealand Rugby used to support its case.

The High Court decision does not resolve the underlying trademark claim: the full dispute is set for a substantive hearing in New Zealand early next year, where both sides will present detailed evidence on trademark rights, market recognition and the commercial impact of overlapping names.

Reporting from the two outlets frames the immediate outcome differently in emphasis: New Zealand Rugby’s account stresses long-standing trademark protections and the risk of 'permanent' or 'significant' damage to its brand, while the NRL’s account emphasises the practical difficulties of forcing an expansion club to rebrand at an advanced stage and the potential harm to the expansion club’s ability to sign players and secure sponsors.

The legal fight revolves around competing evidence about whether consumers and commercial partners in New Zealand and the NRL markets will be confused by the PNG team’s name, and whether trademark protections held by a rugby union entity in one jurisdiction should block a rugby league expansion club operating in another jurisdiction and in Papua New Guinea.

The case will advance to a fuller hearing next year where the courts will weigh trademark registrations, prior refusals by IP Australia, the parties’ commercial plans and testimony on brand recognition.