“The pain of not finding closure, compounded by the way I’ve been treated, has been unbearable.”
Nadene said the nine years it has taken to administer her late husband’s estate had compounded her grief.
“My mental health has been stretched to its limits, and only when the estate is finally administered and completed will the boys and I be able to find true closure and begin to heal from the profound loss of our beloved Jonah.”
Nadene, who is a residuary beneficiary of her husband’s will, has this week lost a trademark battle against the executor of his estate, who holds the right to decide how the rugby great’s intellectual property rights are used.
In essence, Nadene has lost the right to decide how the Jonah Lomu brand is used, as well as who gets to use it.
The ruling effectively paves the way for UK production company Sylver Entertainment to green light its documentary titled Lomu, which it halted while the trademark dispute was settled.
Trademark
At the height of his rugby career in 1997 Jonah Lomu trademarked his own name, image and persona as intellectual property and registered it under his company Stylez Limited.
When he died in 2015 from chronic kidney disease he left the shares in that company to his lawyer, and the executor of his will, Christopher Darlow.
The following year his widow made changes to Stylez Ltd’s records in the Companies Office to increase her shareholding. This prompted Darlow to remove her as a shareholder altogether.
Then in 2017, an agreement was reached to vary the original 1997 trademark and make Nadene a sub-licensee, meaning that if she wanted to use her husband’s name or image she’d need Darlow’s sign-off.
Following that signed agreement, Nadene filed a series of trademark applications in 2021 for the name “Jonah Lomu” covering everything from jewellery, health care products and above all film and television production.
She has been vocal in her opposition to any movie being made about her late husband and in 2023 wrote to the New Zealand Film Commission with a cease and desist letter claiming it had breached her trademark and that it was “wrong and illegal”.
“…someone has to fight and Jonah can’t, so I must, for our whānau,” she said at the time.
Despite the commission maintaining it did have the right to fund the project, after it and UK production company Sylver Entertainment were granted the rights by Darlow, work on the film stalled because of the notice.
Now, Darlow has taken the issue of who really holds Jonah Lomu’s trademark to the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (Iponz) and contested the registrations Nadene made in 2021.
This week the Iponz found that Nadene had effectively tried to “sidestep” the agreement she signed in 2017 and wrestle control of the Jonah Lomu trademark for her own exclusive use.
Darlow told NZME that Nadene’s cease and desist letter allegedly spooked the production company into putting a pause on the film.
“It essentially stopped the production dead,” he claimed.
Darlow said the ruling merely affirmed that he, as executor, had the legal right to decide how his late client’s image, persona and name were used.
“I owe it to his memory to do the right thing,” he said.
“I want the true Jonah Lomu story to be told, the real story… not some jazzed-up version.”
In talking to NZME, Darlow emphasised that any rights deal doesn’t benefit him, but rather Jonah Lomu’s sons, his widow and the rest of his listed beneficiaries.
“Nadene does not have the right to run off and do whatever she wants with Jonah’s intellectual property, and that’s not actually what he would have wanted,” he said.
Hearing
Darlow told the Iponz he filed the application to invalidate Nadene’s trademark reluctantly and only as a “last resort” and that her 2021 registrations were made in bad faith.
At a hearing held last month, Darlow said that following Jonah Lomu’s death he attempted to explain how bankrupt the rugby great actually was.
“Mrs Lomu seemed not to understand that the estate was hopelessly insolvent despite her maintaining she had been responsible for Jonah’s management before he died. She still seems not to accept that this was the case,” his evidence to the hearing reads.
Darlow said the 2017 agreement was intended to see both parties work together to use Jonah Lomu’s intellectual property.
“This has not happened because in my eyes and with respect, Mrs Lomu has concluded she is solely entitled to the rights. She is not,” he said.
“It appears Mrs Lomu considers various other people associated with Jonah and I have conspired to wrongly interfere with her interests. This is untrue.”
Darlow said his application was ultimately prompted because of Nadene’s cease and desist notice to the New Zealand Film Commission which he said had an “unsettling effect” on the future of the production and effectively stymied it while they waited for the trademark issue to be resolved.
By contrast, Nadene had maintained that her late husband always had confidence in her and intended that she be the kaitiaki of his intellectual property and that she was the rightful owner of the “Jonah Lomu” trademark.
“I am the residuary beneficiary, the true owner of the Jonah Lomu Estate outlined in Jonah’s will,” her evidence at the hearing reads.
“Jonah and I worked hand in hand in everything we did. A loving couple and a strongly bonded family with love too. Jonah left his estate to me, bound by no conditions…”
Nadene claims she was “bullied and forced” into signing the 2017 agreement, despite being represented by counsel at the time, and that her agreement was obtained unlawfully.
At the hearing, she reiterated her opposition to a movie being made about Jonah Lomu and claimed Darlow had provided the producers of the film the intellectual property rights unlawfully.
“No production piece on Jonah’s life could ever respectfully or officially be made without the inclusion of his sons and myself,” she said.
“There is no one that cares more about Jonah and his lasting legacy than myself and his two sons … I have never acted in bad faith …”
‘His will was clear’
Assistant Commissioner of Trademarks, Nigel Robb, said that Jonah Lomu’s will was clear; he left his estate to Darlow to administer, not his wife.
Robb emphasised that despite Nadene criticising Darlow’s handling of the will in his position as executor, there was nothing to suggest he’d acted anything other than professionally.
Robb said the evidence before him clearly indicated that Nadene was not the registered owner of the Jonah Lomu trademark and she had been represented by three different law firms since 2017 that would have made that clear to her.
“I consider the application was filed to avoid the limitations on Mrs Lomu’s use of the Jonah Lomu trade mark…” Robb said in his ruling.
“The sending of the cease and desist demand to the New Zealand Film Commission and the producers of the proposed new production about Mr Lomu confirms my view of Mrs Lomu’s intentions when making the application.”
Robb said that in his view Nadene had attempted to “sidestep” the 2017 agreement by filing her own applications to use the mark in 2021.
It was those marks Robb opted to invalidate in his ruling and affirmed Darlow’s right to administer Jonah Lomu’s intellectual property.
Nadene didn’t directly answer whether she would appeal the ruling and said instead that her focus was on seeing the estate wound up in accordance with her late husband’s wishes.
Robb’s ruling has effectively paved the way for UK production company Sylver Entertainment to commence a documentary about the legendary figure titled simply Lomu.
The logline for the film is “experience the unstoppable force of Jonah Lomu, the greatest rugby player to walk the planet, whose indomitable spirit reshaped the game forever”.
The New Zealand Film Commission said that the ruling just confirmed what it already knew: it wasn’t in breach of trademark but was proceeding with caution following Nadene’s letter regardless.
“This ruling just confirms that the NZFC’s understanding was correct,” it said in a statement.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
