Meet the team
Organigram
Team Services
Our expertise
With six partners, three special counsel, and six senior associates, our team combines scale with accessibility. Clients can count on senior input that is hands-on and readily available.
Intellectual property at the core
We understand the power of brands in a competitive market. Trade marks, brand protection, and commercialisation are central to what we do. Our team’s cross-jurisdictional, in-house, and private practice experience means we bring a “one-stop insider’s” approach to managing and protecting IP.
More than registration
Our services extend far beyond filing applications. We provide tailored, practical advice that protects IP assets, structures businesses for growth, mitigates risk, and unlocks commercial value. We prioritise clear, strategic direction—never fence-sitting.
Industry engagement
Our senior lawyers actively contribute to industry bodies across technology, film, television, communications, and the internet, ensuring our insights are grounded in real-world industry knowledge.
Commercial outcomes first
When disputes arise, we are robust advocates but always align with our clients’ commercial objectives using litigation and dispute resolution as tools, not endpoints.
Full lifecycle support
From setting up entities and securing funding to registering trade marks, negotiating commercialisation agreements, structuring employee share schemes, protecting assets, enforcing rights, and guiding sales or exits; we cover the full journey. Few firms in New Zealand can match our scale, depth, and sector insight in technology, media, and IP.
Testimonials
Awards and Recognition
Lawyer Network Annual Awards
Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year 2025
IP Stars
Notable Firm 2025 for Trade Mark Disputes and Trade Mark Prosecutions NZ
Chambers and Partners
IP Tier 1
Whitepapers and Articles
A recipe for disaster – Is caramel a copyright work?
In the online era, a modern recipe can easily be mistaken for a memoir. Despite the rise of short-form cooking content, online recipes are commonly prefaced with the author’s life story, a summary of their childhood struggles, and a discussion of the recipe’s genesis. Read More.
The shape of coffee – “Moccona” vs “Vittoria”
In a case heard by Justice Wheelahan of the Australian Federal Court recently, Dutch coffee giant Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV (KDE), the owner of the MOCCONA brand, brought allegations of trade mark infringement, breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), and passing off against Australian company Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd (Cantarella), which sells coffee under the VITTORIA brand. Cantarella cross-claimed for the removal of the KDE shape mark from the register on several grounds including distinctiveness and that KDE had no intention to use the mark. Read More.
WIPO’s traditional knowledge treaty is adopted
The United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) has adopted its first treaty to recognise the intellectual property of indigenous peoples and local communities: the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (the Treaty). Read More.
Geographical indications – Changes uncorked by the EU-NZ Fair Trade Agreement
The EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement (EU-NZ FTA) was signed mid-last year and came into effect on 1 May 2024. It aims to promote trading relations between New Zealand and the EU, ultimately aiming to increase New Zealand exports by up to $1.8 billion per year by 2035. Read More.
Deepfakes and style mimicking – Should New Zealand adopt a right of publicity?
Canadian visual artist Sam Yang creates distinctive anime-style, almost photo-realistic, artworks. He has millions of followers on socials and sells (and displays) his works online. In 2022, he discovered that a generative AI algorithm had been trained on hundreds of his works and was now capable of producing works “in the style of” Sam Yang. Read More.
The copyright conundrum with generative AI
In 1884, a photograph of Oscar Wilde caused a stir in copyright law when a defendant (who had copied it without permission) argued that photographs should not attract copyright protection, because they have no human author. The photographer does not create the resulting image, it was argued: the camera does. All the photographer does is press the button. Read More.