Technopak Limited v Monzeal Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2018-404-002346

[2024] NZHC 1420

UNDER

the Copyright Act 1994

BETWEEN

TECHNOPAK LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

MONZEAL LIMITED

First Defendant

JAMES PETER GARRICK
Second Defendant

SCOTT EDWARD LEANING

Third Defendant

Hearing:

7 to 11 August 2023

14 to 16 August 2023
21 & 22 August 2023
24 & 25 August 2023

Appearances:

G C Williams & D Scott-Jones for the Plaintiff E St John & S P Maloney for the Defendants

Judgment:

31 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2024 at 3.30pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Richmond Chambers, Auckland A J Park, Auckland

E St John, Barrister, Auckland

S P Maloney, Barrister, Auckland Price Baker Berridge, Auckland

TECHNOPAK LIMITED v MONZEAL LIMITED [2024] NZHC 1420 [31 May 2024]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Para No.]

Introduction  1

Background  7

Parties  7

Development of Technopak 200+  11

Development of Compak for Innovation Waikato  14

Development of new version Compak for Danone  22

Activities of defendants  25

Evidence  32

Alleged copyright infringements  41

Law of copyright  47

Requirements of copyright infringement  47
When does copyright subsist in a work?  49

Originality  51
When is copyright infringed?  54

Secondary infringement  57

Approach to assessing whether copyright has been infringed  58

General issues  62

Are the defendants relying on an affirmative defence?  62

Opportunity to copy  68

Chronological inferences  74
Use of Technopak’s terms and conditions  78

Bulk auger system  79

Bag loader swing arms  84

Is the Technopak design original and capable of being protected by copyright?   86

Monzeal designs  94

Does the Monzeal paddle design infringe Technopak’s copyright?  97

Objective similarity  97

Causal connection  113

Substantiality  116
Conclusion — Monzeal paddle design  119
Does the Monzeal finger design infringe Technopak’s copyright?  120

Objective similarity  124
Conclusion — Monzeal finger design  129
Conclusion — bag loader swing arms  130

Hexagonal filling spout  131

Is the Technopak design original and capable of being protected by copyright? 133 Has Monzeal infringed Technopak’s copyright?  136

Objective similarity  137

Causal connection	150
Substantiality	42
Conclusion — hexagonal filling spout	156

Bag clamp  157

Is the Technopak design original and capable of being protected by copyright? 160 Has Monzeal infringed Technopak’s copyright?  163

Objective similarity  163
Causal connection and substantiality  174
Conclusion — bag clamp  181

Collocation of the various parts  182

Bag stack guides  184

Is the Technopak design original and capable of being protected by copyright? 185 Has Monzeal infringed Technopak’s copyright?  189

Objective similarity  189
Causal connection and substantiality  195
Conclusion — bag stack guides  196

Bag back stop  197

Is the Technopak design original and capable of being protected by copyright? 199 Has Monzeal infringed Technopak’s copyright?  200

Objective similarity  201
Causal connection and substantiality  208
Conclusion — bag back stop  211

Two flight auger  212

Is the Technopak design original and capable of being protected by copyright? 214 Has Monzeal…