KEY POINTS:
State-owned coal miner Solid Energy and a protest group opposing its mining activities are both welcoming a court ruling that prevents the group using the company's corporate logo and name.
Save Happy Valley Coalition's mock report last year on Solid Energy's environmental record was the subject of a day of legal arguments in the High Court at Christchurch.
Solid Energy was seeking to stop the coalition using copyright and trademark material in the spoof report that was dedicated to expressing the environmental protest group's view on coal mining activities.
Justice Lester Chisholm ruled yesterday Save Happy Valley would have to drop Solid Energy's logos and trade marks.
He found Solid Energy had established an arguable case for breaches of the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act, but ruled that the protesters had not breached the Fair Trading Act because their group was not "in trade".
After Justice Chisholm delivered his ruling, Save Happy Valley spokeswoman Frances Mountier, who admitted being the author of the spoof environmental report, said the coalition would put the report back on the group's website with a "slightly altered" front page.
But copies of the original report had spread to other internet sites and blogs, and she couldn't be held responsible for them.
"This whole case started off as a massive defamation prosecution," she said.
"It has now shrunk to the use of eight words and a logo on the front page. That shows how outrageous the proceedings were in the first place."
Solid Energy chief executive Don Elder welcomed the High Court decision as a "good outcome".
However, Dr Elder said it was a shame the matter had to waste court time because the result was exactly what Solid Energy had proposed to the coalition's lawyers.
"We respect people's rights to express their views and we've never tried to stifle criticism or freedom of expression," he said.
The court hearing was about Solid Energy's "absolute right" to protect its trademarks and intellectual property.
"We would have pursued such an action regardless of who had been responsible for the copyright and trademark infringements," Dr Elder said.
- NZPA
