What’s in a name? Enough to ensnare Australia, NZ and PNG in a legal battle over the rugby team name ‘Chiefs’

Last week, New Zealand Rugby began legal action in the High Court of New Zealand to protect the club name “Chiefs” against its use by the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC).

The trademark dispute is over whether the Papua New Guinea expansion team in the National Rugby League (NRL) can use a club name already claimed by a Super Rugby team based in Hamilton, Waikato.

New Zealand Rugby is seeking an injunction to prevent the use of Chiefs or similar names in New Zealand.

Both sides appeared in the High Court today. A two-hour hearing may be set as early as the end of the week. Alternatively, a full-day hearing next year is possible.

The NRL plans to officially launch the PNG Chiefs on October 21. The objections of New Zealand Rugby may now delay those plans.

How did we get here?

The ARLC is the national governing body for rugby league in Australia. New Zealand Rugby is the national governing body for rugby union in New Zealand.

Professional sports are multi-million, sometimes multi-billion, dollar commercial enterprises. Protecting a team’s brand and intellectual property is standard commercial practice.

Because of this, New Zealand Rugby’s actions should have been expected, considering its trademark rights for the word “Chiefs” and the Chiefs logo since 1998. The Waikato Chiefs registered the logo in Australia in 1998.

The PNG expansion team announced its name in 2025.

New Zealand Rugby said it raised concerns about the use of the name Chiefs with the ARLC in 2025. It said no “positive outcome” could be reached, and the organisation then took legal action.

Both the Waikato team and the planned expansion club in the NRL claim cultural and historical ties to the name “Chiefs”.

After the team name’s official announcement in October 2025, PNG Prime Minister James Marape defended the choice. He noted “our thousand tribes were governed by chiefs” and added “the name truly reflects our history, where chiefs, both male and female, held our nation together.”

Meanwhile, Simon Graafhuis, CEO of the Waikato team, stated the identity “carries cultural significance” for their supporters, too.

What are the arguments on both sides?

A number of professional teams use the Chiefs moniker globally.

However, the question is not whether the Waikato club has exclusive rights to the name. Rather, it is whether there is a risk of brand confusion between two teams with the same name competing in similar professional sports codes.

It is also worth noting the Waikato team plays in red, black, and yellow. This colour scheme is shared with many PNG teams, including their national rugby league team. The NRL team’s colours have yet to be officially released, but early branding announcements have featured red, black and gold.

The application to register the PNG Chiefs trademark in Australia was subject initially to three adverse reports from IP Australia, the government agency responsible for trademarks. An adverse report is a response identifying problems with a trademark application – it is not a refusal, but applicants must respond to the issues identified.

However, last month, IP Australia accepted the PNG Chiefs trademark application.

It may be possible for the ARLC to persuade IP Australia and the New Zealand courts that the PNG Chiefs are easily distinguishable as a separate team, competing in a different rugby code, based in a different country.

If successful, such an argument would mean there was no anticipated brand confusion. One argument would be that rugby fans are sufficiently knowledgeable not to confuse the two teams.

At the same time, New Zealand Rugby and the Waikato club believes it is on firm legal ground in opposing the name due to the risk of confusion. They point to the overlapping markets of both Super Rugby and the NRL.

The broader ramifications

There is more at stake than just a name. The Australian government has committed A$600 million to support the NRL’s PNG expansion.

This is also not an investment purely in sport. It represents an investment in sport diplomacy. The Australian government expects this investment to enhance Australia-PNG relations. Crucially, Australia’s support was dependent on Papuans not signing a security pact with China.

Read more: Sports diplomacy: why the Australian government is spending $600 million on a new NRL team in PNG

Because of the national security dimensions, the role of sport diplomacy and, by extension, the NRL’s expansion to Port Moresby are significant.

Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has stated its Pacific Rugby League Project, of which the PNG Chiefs is an integral part, “will use rugby league to drive positive social outcomes, strengthen regional connections and expand opportunities for women, men, girls and boys across the Pacific.”

As well as the wide-ranging ripple effect the court case could have on rugby league and rugby union in this part of the world, it could also have ramifications for Australia’s efforts to use sport for diplomacy with PNG and the broader Pacific.