Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Trade Marks Act 2002

Legal proceedings - Miscellaneous - Evidence

165: Certificate of validity

You could also call this:

"A court's proof that a trade mark is real and belongs to its owner"

When a court case happens about whether a registered trade mark is valid, the court can give a certificate to say that the owner of the trade mark has won the case. This is called a 'certificate of validity'.

If the trade mark owner wins another court case later about the same thing, they can get all their money back for the costs of the case. This includes all the money they paid their lawyer. But two things need to happen for this:

First, the court must have given them a certificate of validity from the earlier case. Second, in the new case, the court must not say that the owner shouldn't get their money back.

This rule helps protect trade mark owners who have already proven their trade mark is valid once before.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM165098.

Topics:
Business > Intellectual property
Previous

164: Trade usage must be considered, or

"Courts must think about how businesses normally use trade marks"

Next

166: Costs, or

"The Commissioner decides who pays for trade mark cases and how much"

Part 4Legal proceedings
Miscellaneous: Evidence

165Certificate of validity

  1. In a legal proceeding in which the validity of the registration of a registered trade mark comes into question, the court may certify a decision that is in favour of the owner of the trade mark.

  2. The owner of a registered trade mark who obtains a final order or judgment in his or her favour in a later legal proceeding in which the validity of the registration of the trade mark comes into question again is entitled to his or her full costs, charges, and expenses as between solicitor and client if—

  3. the court has already certified a decision in favour of the owner under subsection (1); and
    1. the court does not certify in the later proceeding that the owner is not entitled to those costs, charges, and expenses.