Two teams. Three sports. Three nations. All vying to win the battle of the trade mark.
Across rugby codes, two teams have spent over a year locked in a trade mark battle over the name “Chiefs”. In October 2025, it was announced that the NRL’s new Papua New Guinea franchise (who are set to join the league in 2028), would be known as the Chiefs. This announcement was quickly followed by an application to IP Australia to trade mark “PNG Chiefs” across a wide range of merchandise, from footwear to trophies.
However, this application was swiftly challenged by New Zealand Rugby (NZ Rugby), who responded with its own application for exclusive rights to the word “Chiefs” itself, which would supplement the logo trade mark they already owned since 1996 for its NZ Super Rugby team, the Chiefs.
In the NRL’s case, IP Australia found that while “PNG Chiefs” could be used on low-risk items such as napkins or stationery, it could not be approved for sporting-related goods such as clothing or entertainment products, as this would risk confusing consumers with NZ Rugby’s existing trade mark. This was based on the rationale that “PNG” functions only as a descriptive tag indicating the team’s home country, rather than a meaningful point of difference from the bold “Chiefs” logo of the NZ Super Rugby team.
However, the NRL attempted to push back based on the rationale that it is common for teams from different regions to share similar mascots, using the NFL’s Florida Panthers and the NRL’s Penrith Panthers as precedent. This was countered by IP Australia who argued that the comparison did not hold because the NZ Chiefs’ branding lacks a geographic marker that would help distinguish it from a PNG-based equivalent, leaving genuine room for public confusion.
Complicating matters further, several other “Chiefs” teams (including the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs) already hold trade marks for their own distinct logos, underscoring that neither the NRL nor NZ Rugby is negotiating this naming fight in a silo.
A comparable battle is also underway in the world of female sports, with Super Netball’s new Sydney team potentially facing a naming fight after Sports Entertainment Network (SEN) lodged a trade mark application for the name “Sirens”.
However, when the new brand was revealed, it blindsided an existing and unrelated sports brand: the long-established Sydney Sirens women’s ice hockey team, who had used the name for over 20 years and were only informed about the netball team’s name the night before its public reveal.
This trade mark battle is particularly challenging for Ice Hockey NSW as the female team is fully self-funded and losing the right to use the name Sirens could significantly dilute their brand strength and negatively impact long-standing sponsorship relationships that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the team.
According to SEN’s public statement there is “ongoing dialogue” between the two organisations, with the outcome yet to be determined. In the context of this trade mark battle it is significant to note that trade mark law includes protections for first users of a name, which means the ice hockey club isn’t necessarily disadvantaged just because it never formally trade marked “Sydney Sirens,” though any dispute could drag on for years.
Whilst there are examples of teams in different Australian sporting codes using the same moniker, such as the Tigers for both Richmond in the AFL and Wests in the NRL, the difference between these comparisons and the case of the Sydney Sirens lies in the fact that these examples possess a geographical marker, whereas having the same mascot across two teams in different sports, from the same geographical location would likely create confusion.
Did you know?
The “siren” is a key part of hockey culture as a signal for goals and end of play, affording the name a dual meaning.
The term “siren” also represents a broader cultural moment as the word has gained prominence partly due to renewed interest following the film adaptation of The Odyssey in which sirens are figures from Greek mythology, often depicted as part-bird, part-woman and whose enchanting song lures sailors toward the rocks, wrecking their ships.
These trade mark challenges are extremely significant in the sporting arena where team names are far more than merely a label. A team name is ultimately a strategic asset and part of the core infrastructure of the brand. It embodies a club’s identity, drives merchandise sales, shapes how easily fans and media can find the team online, carries the weight of community history and loyalty, and forms the backbone of how sponsors package and pitch their partnership. This is why a clean and unfettered launch matters so much for new teams as it is the entry point through which the entire brand gets built, marketed and remembered.
Conversely, a name that is caught up in a trade mark dispute or already associated with an unrelated club, risks diluting brand strength, confusing sponsors, and undercutting the clean narrative a new franchise needs to establish itself.
It is not an exaggeration to state that these two principles apply just equally as to the world of business. Therefore, even though a final outcome is yet to be determined, it is valuable to look at the trade mark lessons that can be ascertained to date that relate to your business.
Trade mark tips!
Before choosing a name
1. Search the exact name before investing in it. Search IP Australia’s Australian Trade Mark Search for registered and pending marks. You can search by word, phrase, image, owner and goods or services.
2. Search variations and likely extensions. Check singular and plural forms, abbreviations, spelling variations, phonetic equivalents, hyphenations, prefixes and suffixes.
3. Search further than the register. An established unregistered user may still have rights based on prior use, reputation, passing off or misleading conduct so it is vital to check websites, social media, domain names, app stores, business names, company names, industry directories and news archives.
4. Search internationally if your brand travels beyond borders. Consider any country the business will sell, advertise, broadcast, license or sponsor its brand in.
5. Check across different industries and sectors, not just your industry. The Chiefs issue shows that different sporting codes may still compete for sponsorship, merchandise, broadcasting, media attention and fan engagement.
6. Assess the whole brand, not just the words. Check the name, logo, mascot, colours, slogan, uniform or packaging design, social-media handles and domain names separately.
7. Ask whether the name implies affiliation. A geographic prefix or suffix may not solve the problem. For example, consumers could interpret “PNG Chiefs” as an affiliated/expansion version of an existing “Chiefs” team, just as a new “Sydney Sirens” team could be associated with an earlier sporting organisation.
Registration process
8. File in the correct legal owner’s name. Confirm whether the owner should be a company, trust, individual, parent entity or operating subsidiary.
9. File before announcing the brand. Apply before announcing the name, launching a website, manufacturing merchandise or promoting it. Whilst an early priority date can be valuable, it does not override an earlier user’s rights.
10. Choose the right goods and services. Australia has 40+ classes that span goods and services. It is essential to consider current and future business plans so you can register with the correct class information.
11. Register the word mark and logo separately. A logo registration may not provide equivalent protection for the underlying words, while a word mark may not protect distinctive visual elements. Consider separate applications for the core name, full name and key logo.
12. Use the trade mark consistently after filing. Keep the registered version commercially recognisable. Major changes to wording, logo, colours or presentation may weaken the connection between actual use and the registered trade mark.
Evidence and ongoing protection
13. Keep evidence of first use and continuous use. Preserve dated websites, advertisements, invoices, packaging, social posts, sponsorship documents, sales records, event material and media coverage. Such evidence may be important if ownership, prior use or reputation is challenged.
14. Build and document reputation deliberately. Track advertising spend, media reach, customer recognition, sales, social engagement, sponsorships and geographic exposure. Reputation arguments require evidence, not just an assertion that the brand is well known.
15. Monitor new applications and market use. Set up regular searches for identical and similar applications, competitor launches, domain registrations, social handles, counterfeit merchandise and confusingly similiar branding.
16. Act promptly when a conflict appears. In Australia, an accepted application is advertised and can generally be opposed within two months of said advertisement, so it is important not to miss this period when filing a dispute.
17. Consider consent or coexistence early. If another party has a legitimate prior interest, negotiate before launch. Possible solutions include different logos, colour schemes, descriptors, domains, merchandise categories and more.
18. Registration is not the end of trade mark protection. Renew registrations, record authorised users and review the portfolio when the business expands into new products, services or countries.
These two cases exemplify why it is essential to establish a trade mark strategy prior to any public launch, not after a name, logo or merchandise has been announced. Failing to do so can result in a potentially costly and time consuming legal stoush over trade mark ownership, ultimately impacting the value of an organisation’s brand now and in the future.