Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

New Zealand: Evidentiary requirements for statutory declarations made abroad

Sponsored by

aj-park.png
evidence

Kathleen Henning and Kieran O'Connell of AJ Park explore a recent case which emphasises the importance of submitting reliable evidence in invalidation proceedings, even where proceedings are undefended

In Leiying Zhu v Shanghai Yunzheng Catering Management Co Limited [2021] NZIPOTM 14A, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) again emphasised the importance of submitting reliable evidence in invalidation proceedings (even where proceedings are undefended). 

The decision is a valuable reminder to ensure that declarations made outside New Zealand are executed appropriately and in accordance with New Zealand legislation. 

Background to the decision

Shanghai Yungzheng Catering (the applicant) filed an application to invalidate trade mark registration 1086236 桂满陇 in the name of Leiying Zhu (Zhu) on several grounds, including that use of the trademark by the owner was likely to deceive or confuse because of the applicant’s reputation in the trademark. 

The applicant filed two statutory declarations in support of its application, one provided by a law clerk of the applicant’s solicitors, and the other provided by the applicant’s IP Director (the ‘Fangping declaration’). 

Evidentiary requirements for statutory declarations made outside New Zealand

  • Section 160(1) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (TMA) provides that evidence in all proceedings must be given by affidavit or statutory declaration.

  • Section 11(1) of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 (ODA) provides that a declaration made in a Commonwealth country outside New Zealand should be made before “any person authorised by the law of that country to administer an oath there for the purpose of a judicial proceeding”.

  • Section 11(2) provides that a declaration made in a non-Commonwealth country outside New Zealand should be made before a Commonwealth representative, a judge, a notary public, or a solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. Commonwealth representatives include ambassadors, commissioners, ministers, and counsellors and any person lawfully acting for such an officer. 

In Disney Enterprises Inc v Monster Energy Company [2014] NZIPOTM 39, the commissioner confirmed that there was no prescribed form for declarations made in other jurisdictions. As long as the person taking the declaration is from one of the approved categories under sections 11(1) and (2), there is a degree of flexibility around the precise form of the document, and the manner in which it can be taken. According to the commissioner, it was parliament’s expectation that it was appropriate to rely on the expertise and reliability of the approved categories of persons to ensure that the declarations were made properly. 

Evidentiary issues with the Fangping declaration

IPONZ identified the following main evidentiary issues with the Fangping declaration: 

  • The statutory declaration was undated;

  • The statutory declaration was not witnessed correctly, as it was unclear what authority the witness had and whether the declaration was witnessed on the same day that the declaration was signed; and

  • The certificate accompanying the declaration certified the authenticity of the declarant’s signature, rather than confirming that the declarant had declared to an authorised person that the contents of the declaration were true. 

A declaration made in a non-Commonwealth country should be made before a Commonwealth representative, a judge, a notary public, or a solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. The Fangping declaration was made before Zhou Liping (Liping). The declaration did not describe Liping’s role or title, and did not state that Liping belonged to one of the approved categories set out in section 11(2) of the ODA. 

The commissioner emphasised that as long as Liping belonged to one of the approved categories, a simple description of his position or role would have been sufficient. However, because there was no such description on the declaration, the declaration was inadmissible. 

Furthermore, the certificate annexed to the declaration only certified that Fangping’s signature was genuine, and not that Fangping had declared the truth of the contents of the declaration. That this omission can render a declaration inadmissible was confirmed in Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Giorgio Armani SPA Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio [2013] NZIPOTM 45. 

Key takeaways

It is important to submit reliable evidence in invalidation proceedings, even where proceedings are undefended. Statutory declarations made in Commonwealth countries outside New Zealand should be made before a person authorised to administer an oath in that country, while declarations made outside the Commonwealth should be made before a Commonwealth representative, a judge, a notary public, or a solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. Failure to satisfy these evidentiary requirements could result in the dismissal of an invalidation action that might otherwise have been successful. 

Kathleen Henning 

Trademark executive, AJ Park 

E: kathleen.henning@ajpark.com


 

Kieran O’Connell

Principal, AJ Park

E: kieran.oconnell@ajpark.com


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library