Ruscoe v Epic Trust Limited
[2024] NZHC 1336
•24 May 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2024-485-58
[2024] NZHC 1336
UNDER the Trade Marks Act 2002, Fair Trading Act 1986, and breach of confidence BETWEEN
DAVID IAN RUSCOE AND MALCOLM RUSSELL MOORE OF GRANT THORNTON NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED as liquidators of CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
First Plaintiffs
CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Plaintiff
AND
EPIC TRUST LIMITED
First Defendant
THOMAS VICTOR HENRY RONALD CATTERMOLE
Second Defendant
MARTIN BRAINE
Third Defendant
PERSONS UNKNOWN
Fourth Defendant
Hearing: 15 April 2024 Counsel:
S Barker and B Marriner for Plaintiffs B Henry for First Defendant
Judgment:
24 May 2024
JUDGMENT OF ISAC J
[Application for interim injunction]
RUSCOE & MOORE & ANOR v EPIC TRUST LTD & ORS [2024] NZHC 1336 [24 May 2024]
Introduction
[1] In this proceeding, the liquidators of Cryptopia Ltd seek interim injunctions until trial preventing the defendants from using Cryptopia’s confidential information. In response, Epic Trust Ltd, the second defendant, seeks rescission of interim without notice orders made by Palmer J on 13 February 2024.1 The second defendant, Mr Victor Cattermole, is the sole shareholder of Epic Trust, a Montenegrin registered company. He filed an opposition to the Liquidators’ application but did not otherwise participate in the hearing, relying on the submissions advanced by his company.
[2] The Liquidators submit that on the evidence it is seriously arguable the named defendants have unlawfully obtained and misused Cryptopia’s confidential and sensitive commercial information to further their own commercial interests. In response, Epic Trust argues that the Liquidators’ proposed claims are so fundamentally flawed that they cannot succeed at trial. It also argues that it has nothing to do with the conduct alleged against Mr Cattermole and others, and an injunction will prevent it from lawfully going about its business.
[3] The principal issues I must determine are whether the Liquidators have made out a serious issue to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favours an interim injunction. Having considered the evidence and the issues, I have concluded that it is appropriate to grant an interim injunction in the terms sought until trial. My reasons follow.
Background
[4] This proceeding is one of several that have arisen from the collapse of the New Zealand based cryptocurrency exchange operated by Cryptopia. A concise
1 On the basis there is no serious issue to be tried and there is no evidence Epic Trust has ever been in possession of the confidential information. Justice Palmer made interim ex parte orders enjoining the respondents on 13 February 2024. His orders were expressed to continue until the plaintiffs’ application for an interlocutory inunction could be determined on notice. He subsequently set the application down for a hearing. Since then, Epic Trust and Mr Cattermole have filed notices of opposition to the Liquidators’ application. Epic Trust has also filed an application to rescind the interim order.
summary of the events leading to Cryptopia’s liquidation is set out in Palmer J’s judgment of 6 September 2023:2
Cryptopia…is a company that ran a cryptocurrency exchange. In January 2019, there was a serious hack of Cryptopia’s cryptocurrency and the loss of some $30 million of its cryptocurrency holdings. In May 2019, the shareholders of Cryptopia appointed Mr David Ruscoe and Mr Malcolm Moore as liquidators of the company under s 241(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1993. Mr Ruscoe and Mr Moore are chartered accountants, partners in the firm Grant Thornton New Zealand Ltd, and licenced insolvency practitioners. The liquidation involves complex arrangements regarding around 370 functioning cryptocurrencies owned by some 960,000 holders of accounts with positive balances in around 180 countries.
On 8 April 2020, the High Court determined that each type of cryptocurrency is intangible property held by Cryptopia as trustee for the benefit of all the account holders of that currency. Cryptopia itself is a beneficiary of some of those trusts. The High Court’s judgment sets out a more detailed account of the factual background of the liquidation.
[5] Against that backdrop, in 2019 one of the Liquidators, Mr Ruscoe, filed an affidavit in support of an application for directions. The affidavit exhibited two spreadsheets—effectively databases—containing commercially sensitive and confidential information. This information was provided to the Court on a USB stick. The spreadsheets contained usernames and email addresses of Cryptopia’s 960,000 account holders,3 the amount of cryptocurrency held by each account holder, a valuation of each cryptocurrency holding, and other confidential account holder information. None of this was publicly available, although the text of the affidavit which exhibited the information was publicly available on Grant Thornton’s website.
[6] Already interested in the proceeding, in April 2020 Mr Cattermole approached a member of Court staff working in the Christchurch Registry and requested a copy of the spreadsheets. Unknown to the Liquidators or the Court, a deputy registrar released the information to Mr Cattermole. In the months that followed, delphic references by interests associated with Mr Cattermole caused the Liquidators to suspect Mr Cattermole had obtained Cryptopia’s confidential information.
2 Ruscoe v Houchens [2023] NZHC 2490 at [1]–[2] (footnotes omitted), citing Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZHC 728, [2020] 2 NZLR 809.
3 There are slightly over two million account holders, but 960,000 active accounts with coins.
[7] Following an enquiry of the Court, the Liquidators were advised on 20 October 2020 that the confidential information had been provided to Mr Cattermole. The next day, the Liquidators sought and obtained an injunction restraining Mr Cattermole from using or disseminating it.
[8] Subsequently, following a separate application, the Court made orders by consent holding Mr Cattermole in contempt of court. The consent orders of the Court of 14 June 2021 record:
Mr Cattermole agrees that he has committed a contempt of Court by breaching the relevant Court Orders, in not providing all financial / bank statements, and in not providing all devices containing the Spreadsheets to Deloitte, being the USB stick referred to as being used on 14/15 November 2020.
[9] The contempt arose out of Mr Cattermole’s failure to make available certain financial information, and as a result of his failure to provide all devices containing the Cryptopia spreadsheets to a Court appointed forensic examiner, Deloitte. The device in question was a USB stick containing copies of the spreadsheets that Deloitte’s forensic investigation had discovered were used on 14 and 15 November 2020, less than one month after the Court’s order requiring Mr Cattermole to delete and return the confidential information. As part of the consent orders, Mr Cattermole also gave undertakings that he did not have any copies of the spreadsheets “in his power, possession or control”, and that if they or information derived from them came into his power, possession or control in the future, he would delete the information and notify the liquidators.
[10] The Liquidators’ application for directions for distribution of Cryptopia’s account holdings was eventually set down for hearing beginning on 11 November 2023. In the weeks leading up to that hearing, a Hong Kong company controlled by Mr Cattermole, Classic Focus Ltd, wrote to the liquidators and Cryptopia account holders making an offer to acquire their cryptocurrency held by Cryptopia. Essentially the offer would involve a swap of the account holders’ cryptocurrency for a new digital coin, COG, a currency within a metaverse established by Mr Cattermole known as the “Principality of Cogito” (or Cogito). COG is not traded on any exchanges and on the evidence available it is questionable whether it
has any value.4 This contrasts with many of the cryptocurrencies held by Cryptopia for its account holders.
[11] The liquidators chose not to respond to the offer but sent a communication to account holders warning them to be wary of the offer. Nevertheless, between 25 October 2023 and January 2024, variously a Mr T Cattermole, Epic Trust and Cogito (or more accurately a person identified in emails as “Martin Braine LLB, in-house lawyer of the Principality of Cogito”, the named third respondent in this proceeding), began sending further emails to Cryptopia’s account holders. The liquidators allege that Epic Trust has done so using the confidential information wrongly obtained by Mr Cattermole in 2020 and in breach of previous Court orders and Mr Cattermole’s undertaking to the Court. They say that Mr Cattermole continues to use the information either personally or through human and corporate ciphers, to dupe Cryptopia’s account holders into accepting an offer which would see them lose their valuable cryptocurrency in Cryptopia in exchange for a digital coin Mr Cattermole has created, is not traded on recognised exchanges and that lacks any real value.
[12]In reply, Epic Trust makes three essential arguments:
(a)First, Epic Trust has nothing to do with any alleged impropriety by Mr Cattermole, Mr Braine or Cogito. It is a mere trust company wishing to give effect to agreements made by account holders to assign their Cryptopia account holdings to in exchange for COG. There is no evidence that Epic Trust is in possession of the confidential information, much less that it has used it improperly.
(b)Second, the pigeons have already flown the coop. The information relating to account holders was supplied to at least two Russian businessmen in 2020 and is publicly available. It accordingly no longer retains its confidential character and could not support an injunction restraining its use.
4 Mr Henry, counsel for Epic Trust, submitted that the digital coin operates on a similar concept to Bartercard, and enables participants within the Cogito metaverse to exchange goods and services.
(c)Finally, the trademarks on which the Liquidators rely to advance a cause of action do not, as a matter of law, prevent Epic Trust from going about its business of legitimately acquiring account holders’ cryptocurrency. The trademarks do not make it unlawful to use the wording “Cryptopia” in the course of making offers to acquire account holders’ coins.
Relevant principles
[13] The approach to consideration of interim injunctions is well settled.5 Such applications should be determined by assessing:6
(a)whether there is a serious question to be tried;
(b)the balance of convenience; and
(c)where the overall justice lies.
[14] At the interlocutory stage the Court is not required to resolve conflicts of evidence or resolve difficult questions of law requiring detailed argument and mature consideration.7
[15] The balance of convenience requires the court to consider the effect of granting an interim injunction on the respondents, and to balance it against the effect of refusal on the applicant. This is commonly described as “the balance of the risk of doing an injustice”.8 It has been described as the “guiding principle” in granting an interim injunction.9 Although the enquiry is flexible,10 the Court will often consider:
5 See Intellihub Ltd v Genesis Energy Ltd [2020] NZCA 344, [2020] NZCCLR 29 at [24].
6 Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129 (CA) at 142, as cited in Intellihub v Genesis Energy, above n 5, at [23]. See also NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd [2013] NZCA 90 at [12].
7 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 (HL) at 407; Villa Maria Wines Ltd v Montana Wines Ltd [1984] NZLR 4 22 (CA) at 425; and Health Club Brands Ltd v Colven [2013] NZHC 428 at [9].
8 Cayne v Global Natural Resources Plc [1984] 1 All ER 225 (CA), at 237; and McLaughlin v McLaughlin [2019] NZHC 2597 at [37].
9 Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331 (PC) at 337.
10 McLaughlin v McLaughlin, above n 8, at [38].
(a)the adequacy of damages to both sides;
(b)the preservation of the status quo;
(c)relative strength of each parties’ case;
(d)the conduct of the parties; and
(e)the effect on innocent third parties.
[16] The third enquiry – the overall interests of justice—requires the court to stand back and make a global assessment as to the appropriateness, or not, of granting relief.
Have the liquidators established a serious issue to be tried?
[17] The evidence the plaintiffs rely on to support the application consists of extensive affidavit and documentary evidence filed both in this proceeding and in the previous proceedings involving Mr Cattermole. Epic Trust and Mr Cattermole have chosen not to file any evidence in opposition. They instead rely on the onus of proof and argue the threshold for granting an injunction has not been met.
[18] The statement of claim advances three causes of action: breach of confidence; breach of the Trademarks Act 2002; and misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. The evidence provided to support each claim is essentially the same. So I begin with a summary of the key points.
[19] There is evidence first that Mr Cattermole supplied a Mikhail Vakhrin with the spreadsheets in 2020 by USB stick. Email communications obtained by the Liquidators from Mr Vakhrin in December 2023 indicate that between 26 September 2020 and 28 November 2020, Mr Cattermole distributed Cryptopia’s confidential information with a view to gaining a commercial advantage from it. The last communication on 28 November 2020, explicitly discussed the proposed use of that material to commercialise the Principality of Cogito. This occurred one month after the High Court had made orders restraining Mr Cattermole’s use of the information and directed its destruction or return. An inference which could be drawn
at trial is that despite the orders of this Court, Mr Cattermole intended to pursue use of Cryptopia’s confidential information for his own benefit.
[20] There is also evidence that subsequently, between November 2023 and 13 January 2024, interests or people who appear to have a connection to Mr Cattermole, Epic Trust or Cogito, have made repeated email approaches to account holders. The emails variously make offers to acquire the account holder’s cryptocurrencies, criticise the Liquidators, or encourage the recipients to obtain their “personal data” for their Cryptopia accounts by completing a verification process with Cogito. In doing so, Mr Ruscoe deposes that the senders have used account holder email addresses that are not publicly available and could only have been obtained from the confidential spreadsheets. This includes emails from 64 account holders who have never signed up for the “Cryptopia Rescue” page on Facebook, or the Cogito Metaverse, and as at 8 February 2024, 54 inactive internal Cryptopia email addresses had also received a “settlement offer”. These accounts, according to Mr Ruscoe’s evidence, have been inactive since liquidation and have not been listed publicly. Mr Ruscoe has confirmed they were contained in the spreadsheets obtained by Mr Cattermole in 2020.
[21] The six email communications in evidence have consistent features which satisfy me there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the respondents have retained and continue to use Cryptopia’s confidential information:
(a)First, there is no dispute Mr Cattermole is the sole shareholder of Epic Trust or that Mr Cattermole is the self-described “Crown Prince” of the Cogito metaverse. Nor does there appear to be any dispute—or evidence to contradict—the Liquidator’s evidence that Epic Trust is the Montenegrin incorporated trust company for Cogito.
(b)There is no real doubt that for many account holders, who are located in at least 180 countries, English is their second language. One account holder, having received an offer to acquire their Cryptopia holdings from the email address [email protected]
sent an email to the Liquidators’ official Cryptopia email address “[email protected]” stating:
Good day, can you please advise me how I can convert these 500 euros into money? my English is not the best, but I did not find the option to transfer cryptocurrency to another account (from cogito) and the exchange. Thanks a lot.
(c)There is no dispute — or no evidence to contradict — the Liquidators’ evidence that Cogito emails have been sent to account holders using email addresses that could only have been derived from Cryptopia’s confidential information.
(d)The emails are all linked in some way to Mr Cattermole, Epic Trust, Cogito, or all three. For instance, the addresses from which the emails have been sent to account holders are:
[email protected]; and
(e)Emails sent to account holders on 25 October 2023 were signed off by a “T Cattermole”. Subsequently, emails on 4 November and 21 December 2023 were signed off by a “Martin Braine LLB, In House Lawyer, Principality of Cogito”. An email sent on 3 January 2024 is signed off “Cogito Support”. Similarly, an email sent to account holders on 21 December 2023 refers to Mr Cattermole’s acquisition of confidential information and suggests it has been sent by him to a “3rd party contractor in Europe”.
(f)Arguably some emails are set-out or expressed in such a way as to cause confusion as to whether they have been sent by the Liquidators or with their approval on behalf of Cryptopia. The subject lines and titles used in the emails routinely use the title “Cryptopia”, and phrases such as “Cryptopia Communication”, “Important Update” or “Cryptopia / Cogito Settlement Update…”. The use of the name “Cryptopia” in the subject line and in headings in the body of the emails gives the impression they are official Cryptopia communications and have been
sent either by the Liquidators, on their behalf or with their imprimatur. Conversely, some emails criticise the Liquidators’ conduct and claim legal advice suggests the confidential information is now available for use by Cogito and its agents. Some of the emails carry a sense of urgency in relation to the need to accept the Cogito offer of digital currency in exchange for account holders’ cryptocurrency. Some also indicate that account holders ought to obtain their account information from Cogito, and upon verification of the account holders’ details, that information will be provided to them. This is so notwithstanding orders of the High Court preventing it.
(g)The Liquidators’ evidence is that the emails are likely to cause recipients to believe that some or all of the emails are an official communication from them rather than Mr Cattermole’s interests. The documentary evidence provided in support indicates that a number of Cryptopia account holders have indeed been misled into thinking precisely that. Others have contacted the Liquidators asking if the Cogito offer is a scam. Social media discussion on Reddit and Facebook also reveal uncertainty and confusion about the legitimacy of the Cogito offer and communications.
Breach of confidence
[22] As I have noted, Mr Henry on behalf of Epic Trust makes two submissions in relation to the Liquidators’ claim based on a breach of confidence. First, on the evidence he submitted there was nothing to support the view that Epic Trust has had anything to do with the conduct alleged against Mr Cattermole, or others, in relation to the putative use of Cryptopia’s confidential information. Second, he submits the horse has already bolted, and the information in the spreadsheets is publicly available and in use. The information has therefore lost its confidential character.
[23] I am unable to accept either submission. First, there is ample evidence linking Mr Cattermole to the confidential information, Cogito, Epic Trust, and, by obvious inference, to the recent emails apparently sent for or on behalf Cogito to account
holders. While it will be a matter for the trial judge to determine, I am clearly satisfied on the available evidence there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the respondents are using Cryptopia’s confidential information as part of an attempt to acquire account holder’s cryptocurrencies, and that by doing so that they have acted in breach of confidence.
[24] Second, while it is clear Mr Cattermole has made the confidential information available to third parties, that does not mean it is publicly available. Moreover, a Court exercising its equitable jurisdiction will not generally allow a defendant to avail itself of circumstances it has brought about itself. In New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association of Canterbury Ltd v Farmers Trading Co Ltd, Chilwell J said that a defendant cannot create its own inconvenience and then have it taken into account in balancing the scales of convenience—at least not when it embarks upon the questionable conduct with its eyes open.11 While this consideration usually arises at the second stage, when considering the balance of convenience, it reflects the more fundamental doctrine of illegality in our law—or from the principle ex turpi causa. In my view, it is at least seriously arguable that the respondents in this case cannot raise a defence to the plaintiffs’ claim for breach of confidence based on their own alleged unlawful acts.12
Breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986
[25] In relation to the liquidators’ claim of misleading conduct under the Fair Trading Act, Mr Henry made one key submission. He argued that the liquidator was not in trade with Cryptopia and, therefore, could not bring a claim for misleading conduct under the Act. In oral submissions, Mr Henry emphasised that while Cryptopia may be in trade with the account holders—the people who actually own the coins — it has never been in trade with the liquidators. The claim is therefore unsustainable.
11 New Zealand Farmers’ Co-op Assn of Canterbury Ltd v Farmers’ Trading Co Ltd (No.1) (1979) 1 TCLR 18, at 28.
12 It remains for trial as to whether any unlawful acts have been made out, and by whom. But it seems seriously arguable on the evidence that Mr Cattermole obtained the confidential information, distributed it to others, and that other persons or interests said to be associated with Mr Cattermole, including Epic Trust, continue to misuse or benefit from the misuse of it.
[26] The short answer to Epic Trust’s argument is that s 9 does not require a plaintiff and defendant to be in trade with one another. The defendant need only be in trade generally. Conduct carried on in any business, industry, profession, occupation, or commercial activity may be conduct “in trade”.13 There are many examples of successful cases brought by trade competitors under the Act not because they have been directly affected by a defendant’s misleading and deceptive conduct, but because the defendant has misled or deceived customers in the plaintiff’s market.14 In addition, s 3(1) provides that the Act extends to engaging in conduct outside New Zealand by any person resident or carrying on business in New Zealand to the extent such conduct relates to the supply of goods or services within New Zealand. The evidence satisfies me there is a seriously arguable question whether the defendants are resident in or have carried on business within New Zealand.
[27] As the evidence stands there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the emails allegedly sent by the defendants, or caused to be sent by them, amounts to conduct likely to mislead or deceive, in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act. The evidence also suggests there has been actual confusion on the part of some account holders concerning the source and legitimacy of the Cogito offer made in the emails in question.
Trade Mark infringement
[28] The third cause of action advanced by the Liquidators relates to an alleged infringement of Cryptopia’s trademarked name. As I have noted, the email communications commonly used Cryptopia’s name either in the subject line, within the email address of the sender, or as a separate and prominent heading within the body of the text of the email. The Liquidators contend using the trademark “Cryptopia” in this way infringes the mark and gives rise to a breach of s 89 of the Trade Marks Act.
13 Gault on Commercial Law (online looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters) at FT2.18.01.
14 Brands Ltd v Bed Bath ‘N’ Table Pty Ltd [2023] NZHC 1766; DB Breweries Ltd v Lion Nathan Ltd (2007) 12 TCLR 25 (HC); Paper Plus NZ Ltd v Robert Mitchell Ltd HC Auckland CL53/92, 10 March 1993; Wilson's Army Navy Western Ltd v Recycled Recreation Ltd (1988) 2 TCLR 668 (HC); National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd (1992) 5 TCLR 161 (HC). Additionally, the Commerce Commission regularly brings claims where a company has allegedly misled a customer base, without being “in trade” with the company itself.
[29] In light of my findings on the first two causes of action it is unnecessary to determine whether there is a serious question as to the alleged trade mark infringement, or Mr Henry’s argument the alleged use of the trade mark in question is not within the categories of activity protected by the mark.15
Does the balance of convenience favour the grant of an interim injunction?
[30] I am satisfied that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interim injunction. The risk of harm if an interim injunction is not granted is two-fold.
[31] First, the continued unconstrained use of the confidential information will cause greater costs in the liquidation, which will ultimately become a cost to the account holders.
[32] Second, there is evidence the defendants—or parties likely connected to them—are offering to supply confidential account holder information, used by the Liquidators to verify the identity of account holders, to anyone who can meet Cogito’s verification processes. There is no guarantee that such processes will lead to the identification of legitimate account holders. There is therefore a real risk of release of account holder information to third-parties seeking to pass themselves off to the Liquidators as the true owners of coin held on trust. Should the defendants release account holder confidential information to the wrong parties, the Liquidation itself may be put at risk. There is clearly a significant risk of irreparable harm to account holders as a consequence.
15 Epic Trust argues that the Cryptopia trade mark was only used to make an offer to purchase the coins from account holders, and since the trade mark classes do not cover a person seeking to buy a chose in action, the use of the trade mark was not unlawful.
[33] In contrast, the effect of granting an interim injunction on the defendants would be delay. If, on a full assessment of the issues by the trial judge, the defendants were entitled to use the confidential information, they would be able to continue using it, albeit after a delay. Any commercial loss would be quantifiable and capable of remedy by an award of damages.16
[34] Mr Henry also submitted there is no longer a case for a permanent injunction because it is ‘too late’. He points to evidence that there are 6,000 account holders who have entered into agreements with Cogito, and a further 4,000 in negotiations to do so. He says that to ask for an injunction at this stage is wrong—and that the claim should be in damages, not an injunction.
[35] I cannot accept this argument for two reasons. First, even if 10,000 account holders are in the process of taking up an offer with Cogito, that still leaves another 950,000 account holders who, if the defendants are not enjoined, might still be misled by further Cogito communications. As discussed above, there are several clear examples of confusion on the part of account holders that would be prevented if an injunction is granted.
[36] Second, those account holders who have entered into agreements with Cogito or Epic Trust as a result of misuse of Cryptopia’s confidential information may have the right to set-aside the agreements. And in addition, it is at least arguable that some or all of the agreements have come about as a result of misuse of Cryptopia’s confidential information and might also be the subject of challenge by the Liquidators.
Overall interests of justice?
[37] Stepping back and considering the overall interests of justice, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the injunctions sought by the plaintiff. The potential impact of the continued use of unauthorised information is significant, as is the potential impact on the liquidation itself. If injunctive relief is not granted, that would
16 The defendants would still be at liberty to make an offer to purchase account holder cryptocurrency after it has been returned to account holders. The only apparent disadvantage to the plaintiffs from delay is the prospect the account holders might have their property returned to them before the offer could be made and therefore become less likely to accept the offer. It is difficult to see any legitimate disadvantage to Epic Trust arising in these circumstances.
effectively resolve the substantive proceeding against the plaintiffs. In granting the injunction, the position of account holders is also preserved until the claim can be determined.
Conclusion and orders
[38]I make the following orders:
(a)That from the date of this judgment until such time as the proceeding is finally determined the first to fourth defendants are prohibited from:
(i)using, relying on, referring to, disseminating, or disclosing the information about Cryptopia's database and cryptocurrency holdings contained in the spreadsheets exhibited to the affidavit of David Ian Ruscoe dated 8 November 2019 in CIV-2019-409-544 (or copies thereof, whether in electronic or hard copy); and
(ii)using the terms “Cryptopia” and “CRYPTOPIA”:
(1)in the headings or sub-headings of any documents or communications created for the purposes of advertising to or communicating with Cryptopia’s account holders, or persons who may be Cryptopia’s account holders; and
(2)in any domain names, usernames, account names, email addresses, subject lines or display names used for the purposes of advertising to or communicating with Cryptopia’s account holders, or persons who may be Cryptopia’s account holders.
[39] I reserve leave to the plaintiffs to seek to modify the terms of these orders, including any extension of them to agreements putatively entered into between Cogito and account holders concerning ownership of cryptocurrency held by Cryptopia.
Isac J
Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Wellington for Plaintiffs
Cavell Leach Ltd, Christchurch for First Defendant
5
7
1