Supreme Court lets Lego reopen its New Zealand trade mark fight with Zuru after the Mowbray brothers’ Court of Appeal win

The Supreme Court has handed Danish toy giant Lego a fresh chance to reverse its New Zealand defeat at the hands of Zuru, the Auckland born plastic brick maker run by Mat and Nick Mowbray. On 7 May the country’s top court granted Lego leave to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling that found the phrase “LEGO® BRICK COMPATIBLE” on Zuru’s MAX Build More packaging did not amount to trade mark infringement.

The decision puts the dispute back into play after a courtroom run that already includes a High Court ruling for Lego, a December 2025 reversal in the Court of Appeal, and now a Supreme Court hearing slated to test the boundaries of comparative advertising in this country. The Court of Appeal first heard the case in October 2024, and its written judgment came down in late 2025.

The fight matters well beyond the toy aisle. Zuru is one of New Zealand’s biggest privately owned exporters and the Mowbrays are widely listed among the country’s wealthiest siblings, with their international ranges of building bricks, dolls and bath toys sold in Walmart, Target and Tesco. Lego is the world’s largest toy maker by revenue and treats its brick patents and word mark as among its most valuable assets. A ruling that brand owners can or cannot police compatibility claims on cheaper substitutes will be felt by every challenger and every imitator on New Zealand shelves.

The disputed packaging tells a buyer that Zuru’s MAX Build More bricks fit with Lego pieces. The High Court accepted Lego’s argument that prominent use of the LEGO mark on a competitor’s box would lead some shoppers to believe the products were authorised by Lego, or formed a sub line of the Lego family. That decision leaned heavily on expert evidence about consumer confusion.

The Court of Appeal threw it out. In a judgment that quickly entered intellectual property folklore in this country, the bench said “consumers are not stupid” and added that consumers in the 21st century are brand aware and not easily fooled. Justice Ellis, writing for the majority, held that issues of deception and misleading conduct were not ones on which expert evidence was likely to be substantially helpful, and that the central legal gateway under section 89(2) of the Trade Marks Act required use of a sign in a way likely to be taken as use as a trade mark, not merely use of it. The phrase on the Zuru box, the court said, identified what Lego made, not who made the Zuru bricks.

The Supreme Court has now decided that question is worth a final look. The National Business Review reported on 7 May that the country’s top court had cleared the way for a fresh hearing, and Radio New Zealand confirmed the grant of leave the same day. The result is that comparative advertising in New Zealand, especially for cheaper substitutes that pin themselves to a famous brand, sits in a holding pattern until the Supreme Court rules.

For Zuru the case is one front in a much wider trading environment that the Mowbrays have flagged as the toughest of their careers. Nick Mowbray told audiences in April 2025 that the Trump administration’s proposed tariff regime would cost Zuru around US$3 billion, given how much of its volume passes through American retailers from factories in China and Vietnam. Holding the line on its New Zealand trade mark win matters for export confidence as much as for shelf space at home, because a defeat in Wellington could embolden similar challenges in Australia, Britain and the United States, where Zuru products carry the same compatibility wording.

For Lego the calculation runs the other way. The company has fought, and largely lost, brick shape patent claims in Europe over the past two decades and now relies more heavily on the LEGO word mark and brand reputation to keep imitators in their place. Allowing competitors to put LEGO on their own boxes, even in a comparative way, is the line the company is trying to defend. That is why a small New Zealand box of MAX Build More has produced a hearing in our highest court.

The ruling, when it comes, will be watched closely by anyone who has tried to write the words “compatible with” on a New Zealand product, from third party printer cartridge sellers to phone case makers and aftermarket auto parts importers. If the Court of Appeal’s reading holds, the comparative phrase remains a legitimate piece of consumer information and a genuine helping hand for shoppers who want to know whether a cheaper accessory will work with the brand they already own. If the Supreme Court restores the High Court approach, brand owners will have a sharper tool to push generic and challenger products out of their slipstream.

The wider economic context for Zuru is also instructive. The company has used New Zealand as a base while building factories and distribution offshore, and its court costs in the LEGO dispute alone are reported to run into the millions. A Mowbray loss would not stop Zuru shipping bricks. It would, however, force a redesign of packaging in dozens of markets and could slow the launch of new lines that lean on Lego compatibility as part of their pitch.

A Supreme Court hearing date has not yet been set. In the meantime Zuru continues to ship its bricks into more than 120 countries from its Auckland headquarters, and Lego’s legal team continues to prepare for what is now its third bite at this particular New Zealand cherry.

What’s your read on the case? Should compatibility statements be fair game for cheaper rivals, or does Lego deserve to keep its name off other people’s boxes? Drop your thoughts in the comments below.