Crocodile International Pte Limited v Lacoste

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 47/2016
[2016] NZSC 88

BETWEEN	CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED Applicant
AND	LACOSTE Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	D A Laurenson QC and B M Sullivan for Applicant J G Miles QC, R M Wallis and T A Huthwaite for Respondent
Judgment:	19 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste [2016] NZCA 111).

B The approved question is:

Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court decision to set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks revoking trade mark 70068?

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Henry Hughes Law Limited, Wellington for Applicant
Baldwins Law Limited, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Crocodile International Pte Limited brought an appeal against Lacoste in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, a Singaporean company, sought to enforce a registered trade mark for the word "Crocodile" in New Zealand. The dispute centred on whether the Court of Appeal had correctly set aside a decision by the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks to revoke trade mark 70068. The legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its review of the Assistant Commissioner's decision and if the revocation of the trade mark was justified.

The court examined the process by which the Assistant Commissioner had revoked the trade mark, focusing on whether there was any error in the application of the law or in the assessment of the evidence. The applicant argued that the revocation was unjustified and that the Court of Appeal should not have set aside the original decision. The court considered the principles of administrative law, including the standard of review applicable to the Assistant Commissioner’s decision and whether the Court of Appeal had applied these principles correctly. Ultimately, the court found that the Court of Appeal had indeed erred in its review of the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and concluded that the Court of Appeal had made an error in its interpretation of the law and its review of the Assistant Commissioner’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal should not have set aside the order revoking trade mark 70068. The matter was remitted back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s findings. This decision highlighted the importance of correctly applying administrative law principles when reviewing decisions of administrative bodies.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established