Chiefs v Chiefs: NRL claims it was blindsided by NZ Rugby injunction bid

The NRL says it has been "blindsided" by New Zealand Rugby's urgent bid to stop Papua New Guinea's incoming NRL franchise from using the Chiefs name, while NZR claims it has been left "shadow-boxing" in unsuccessful attempts to engage with rugby league officials over the trademark dispute.

The opening salvos in the escalating legal battle were heard before Justice Karen Grau in the High Court in Wellington on Monday, as the NZR seeks an interim injunction to prevent the use of "PNG Chiefs", "Chiefs" or similar names in New Zealand.

The NRL has accused New Zealand Rugby of waiting up to 10 months to act on its concerns over Papua New Guinea's incoming NRL franchise using the Chiefs name, arguing the delay makes its urgent High Court injunction application unfair.

But NZR said it has repeatedly tried to engage with NRL and PNG Chiefs officials to resolve the dispute, only to be met with a lack of meaningful response. It argues the urgency has increased as the PNG club's official launch approaches.

Justice Grau is expected to rule later on Monday whether NZR's application should proceed urgently, with a two-hour hearing scheduled for later this week, or whether the matter should be heard in full early next year.

Counsel for the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC), which is representing the interests of the NRL and the PNG team, Joe Edwards, said the escalation to formal legal proceedings had come as a surprise.

Edwards told the court the ARLC was notified of NZ Rugby's concerns about PNG adopting the Chiefs name four days after the initial team launch in October last year. He added ARLC outlined its position in December last year, but heard nothing further from NZ Rugby until last month.

"This has come out of the blue and blindsided people," he said, arguing that if the matter was genuinely urgent, it should have been raised months earlier.

He asked the court to instead set the matter down for a substantive hearing, questioning why NZ Rugby was seeking urgent relief after such a lengthy period.

"We're querying why there is urgency now when they've had so long to file."

NZ Rugby counsel Earl Gray rejected the suggestion the application was a "blindside move", saying a draft statement of claim had been provided to the defendants on 28 September.

"This was a last ditch effort to get resolution or at least engagement ... there was no response to that," Gray told the court.

"At the moment we've just been shadow-boxing because we've had no engagement."

Gray also argued NZR only recently became aware of the PNG club's plans for an official brand launch on 21 October, which prompted the need for urgent action.

"The date of the announcement ... has been the trigger, because we all know the launch of a brand and logo is the start of a real ramping up," Gray said.

Chiefs v Chiefs

At the centre of the legal battle is NZ Rugby's claim that allowing the PNG team to use the Chiefs name risks confusion and damage to a brand the Waikato-based Super Rugby club has built over more than 30 years.

The legal battle threatens to disrupt the PNG club's plans to formally unveil their inaugural jersey and branding in Port Moresby next week. The PNG team, which is set to join the NRL in 2028 as the competition's 19th franchise, is backed by a $600 million Australian government funding package.

NZR have argued that allowing another professional sporting franchise to use the same name in the same trans-Tasman market risks undermining a brand it has spent three decades building.

NZR chief executive officer Steve Lancaster said for 30 years the Chiefs and their players have built an "incredibly strong identity that is widely recognised and loved by fans".

"We want to be absolutely clear, this is not about rugby league's growth in the Pacific. We welcome the development of the Pacific region through sport and the passion that the people of Papua New Guinea have for both rugby and rugby league."

"For 30 years the Chiefs and their players have built an incredibly strong identity that is widely recognised and loved by fans. We have raised our concerns with the ARLC directly and consistently over the last year in attempting to find a resolution. We now have a responsibility to protect the Chiefs brand," he said.

The Waikato side has used the Chiefs name since 1996 and holds registered trademarks covering its logo in New Zealand and internationally, including Australia.

The Super Rugby club's position appears to be backed by IP Australia, which has reportedly raised repeated concerns about the PNG's club's attempts to secure trademark protection for its name.

The ABC reported earlier this month the NRL has received three adverse reports in response to the PNG club's trademark applications, with IP Australia declaring there is a "real and tangible danger" of brand confusion.

However, ARLC executive chair Peter V'landys has criticised NZR's position as "mind-blowing hypocrisy", pointing to the use of the Blues name by both rugby league and rugby union teams.

"The NSW Blues have been around since the 1900s," V'landys told The Australian.

"They've been using the Auckland Blues since the 1990s and never consulted us. They took our name, the Blues, and we were never concerned then they go ahead and do this.

"When we registered the Chiefs they have acted with mind-blowing hypocrisy."