This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 6: Comparative, Referential and Expressive Use of Trademarks
Court of Appeal of New Zealand [2025]: Zuru New Zealand Limited and Ors v Lego Juris A/S and Anor, [2025] NZCA 650
Date of judgment: December 10, 2025
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff/Appellant: Zuru New Zealand Limited; Zuru Toys New Zealand Limited
Defendant/Respondent: Lego Holding A/S; Lego A/S
Keywords: Use as a trademark; Comparative advertising; Honest use/practices; Freedom to impart and receive information
Basic facts: Lego has been a leading manufacturer of plastic building bricks, baseplates and figures since the late 1940s. Although the patents and copyright held on its basic brick and baseplate products have long since expired, the registered trademark LEGO remains.
Zuru, a New Zealand based, self-styled “disrupter”, markets its own plastic toy building bricks and related products under the trademark MAX BUILD MORE. Zuru’s plastic toy brick products are compatible for use with Lego’s products. Zuru wishes to tell consumers this and sought to do so through the use of compatibility statements on the packaging of their products such as: “LEGO® BRICK COMPATIBLE”. The statement contains the Lego word mark but does not use the well-known LEGO logo.
The High Court determined that the compatibility statements constituted infringing use under s 89 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 (TMA). It also found that the statements were not protected by the statutory defences of comparative advertising (s 94) or use indicating the quality of purpose of the goods (s 95) because the use had not been in accordance with honest practices. Zuru appealed these findings.
Held: The majority held that the reference to Lego in the compatibility statement did not involve use as a trademark (as a badge of origin) and so was not infringing. In the alternative, the majority agreed with the minority that the use constituted comparative advertising and was in accordance with honest practices, so protected by the comparative advertising defense.
Relevant holdings in relation to comparative, referential and expressive use of trademarks: See above.
Relevant legislation: Trade Marks Act 1953 (NZ001); Trade Marks Act 2002 (NZ290); Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK008); Trade Marks Act 1995 (AU026); Trade Marks Act 1998 (SG 008); New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.