New Zealand Rugby's Chiefs franchise is seeking an amicable solution in its dispute with Papua New Guinea's new rugby league franchise of the same name, but it's not clear that the NRL wants to compromise.
By Johnny Blades for RNZ
NZR recently wrote to Australia's National Rugby League, urging it to reconsider the name of the fledgling PNG Chiefs franchise as it clashes with the long-established Super Rugby Pacific Chiefs.
The Chiefs rugby franchise has held the trademark in Australia for its name and logo since 1998. IP Australia has knocked back attempts by the NRL to register the trademark because of what it identified as the potential for brand confusion.
However, the PNG franchise - which is set to join the NRL in 2028 - says it's pushing ahead with plans to launch its brand and logo later this month
Brand building
The CEO of the Chiefs rugby franchise, Simon Graafhuis, said that since both teams will be operating in the same trans-Tasman market, the overlap of name would be problematic.
"The IP office in Australia - when the NRL went to register the name - didn't allow it because of the potential confusion," he told RNZ Pacific.
"And we've seen the media already where there's talk about player transfers or sponsors going to the Chiefs. It causes confusion amongst fans, sponsors.
"We've got a right to a level of protection. That's what trademark law is about.
"We spent 30 years building a brand and a fan base and a sort of a culture that reflects the region. In terms of in terms of IP law, it's pretty clear cut."
Colours
Rugby fans in the region are familiar with the Hamilton-based Chiefs' brand and the team's usual playing strip of black, red and yellow.
These same colours are the colours of the PNG flag, and had been widely expected to feature when the PNG side enters the NRL competition in 2028.
But a spokesperson for the PNG Chiefs told RNZ Pacific people shouldn't assume the playing strip will be the red, black and yellow of PNG's flag - that's more a thing for the PNG national side, the Kumuls.
The spokesperson expressed confidence that the PNG Chiefs launch on 21 October will help distinguish their outfit and bring clarity to the issue.
Meanwhile, the NZR awaits a response from the NRL whose lawyers could cite examples of where similarly-named franchises in different oval ball codes have co-existed in the same market.
There is of course the case of the Auckland Blues Super Rugby team operating in the same trans-Tasman market as the New South Wales Blues rugby league team in the State of Origin series, not to mention the AFL's Carlton Blues.
Graafhuis is not sure it's a valid comparison, saying that for the league team, the 'Blues' is more of a nickname.
"I can't really comment on what protection was put in place. Obviously, neither got it registered. New South Wales Blues only plays three games a year. Next year will be the first year they actually play outside of Australia, so quite different in terms of the times they operate."
Geopolitical stakes
There's a lot riding on the PNG Chiefs' entrance into the NRL, not just because of its importance to PNG as a nation whose government pushed for this opportunity for many years.
But also because Australia's government is funding the team with a massive 600-million AUD over ten years, leading some to suggest Canberra could play a hand in encouraging a way through the dispute.
Both sides want to co-exist in the same sporting ecosystem, one in which rugby league is a significantly larger commercial operation, but NZR has a legitimate trademark that gives it a sound legal basis in this dispute
Graafhuis said he couldn't see how a name pivot by the PNG franchise would endanger the Australian investment.
"Look, I'm assuming the government's backing the good of having a team in PNG geopolitically, socially, culturally," he said.
"I can't imagine that the money's going in because of the name. I think it'll be because of what it does and what it does for the region."
He said both the Chiefs and NZR were keen to come up with an amicable solution.
"The last thing you want to do is go down a legal route because that becomes time consuming and costly for all involved.
"There would have to be a launch, and some brand damage, before there'd be any consequences. That's why we've raised it now before before there's really a cost to either party."
From the rugby Chiefs' perspective, there's a simple solution, Graafhuis said.
"Find another name that's appropriate and meaningful. Do some checks that you've actually got licence to operate that so you can use the name. That's probably the learning for them in this one.
"I'm sure there are lots of names that in time will become really meaningful to them. But that's pretty easy for me to say, yeah, just change the name."
SHARE ME