Paul is the Practice Group Leader for AJ Park's Litigation practice. He assists clients to effectively handle contentious intellectual property issues.
Paul advises clients on actual or potential legal disputes, including in relation to registered intellectual property (IP) rights, copyright, and consumer and marketing law. He helps his clients to develop and implement appropriate strategies to effectively manage and resolve disputes, whether by negotiation, litigation or other dispute resolution methods.
Paul appears on behalf of his clients in the Courts and in IP office hearings. Though based in our Auckland office, Paul travels regularly to work with clients in Wellington and Christchurch.
Paul has more than 19 years’ experience in IP disputes, including five years at a leading general commercial firm in New Zealand and at a major international firm based in London.
Paul is also currently serving as a member of the Copyright Tribunal of New Zealand.
Paul’s recent industry accolades include being:
- highlighted in the 2023 IAM Patent 1000
- recognised in WTR 1000 2022 as a bronze individual for enforcement & litigation.
- selected by his peers for inclusion in the 2023 and 2024 Best Lawyers in New Zealand™ in the field of IP law, and Litigation.
- Noted as a recommended individual in IAM Patent 1000 for 2022.
Paul enjoys meeting a diverse variety of people, whether through his work across various industries, through family activities with his wife and children, or over a good meal with a glass of beer or wine.
- LLB (Hons), University of Otago (2000)
- BSc, University of Otago (2000)
- Admitted as a Barrister & Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand
- Admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia
- Admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales
Paul Johns's insights
Article \ 22 Dec 2023
Apple watches - not so smart?
The incorporation in Apple smartwatches of a light-based pulse oximetry sensor raises the question: could these smartwatches be considered a “medical device” requiring compliance with New Zealand's Medicines Act and related regulations?
Article \ 28 Nov 2023
The Designs Act 1953 – living on borrowed time?
Is the Designs Act 1953, unamended and underused since passed into law 70 years ago, due an update?
News \ 20 Nov 2023
Paul Johns takes a giant leap for the Graeme Dingle Foundation
On 16 November, Paul Johns stepped out of his comfort zone and off the top of Auckland's Sky Tower, as part of the Graeme Dingle Foundation's Drop Your Boss Fundraiser.
Article \ 30 Nov 2021
Criticism over copyright issues prods NZ library to cease book…
The New Zealand National Library decided to cease its donation of 600,000 books from its overseas published collection to Internet Archive for digitization, following a wave of criticism due to copyright issues.
Article \ 1 Oct 2021
Divorce, art and copyright
A divorce case between an artist and her husband in New Zealand has got copyright issues thrown into the mix.
Article \ 23 Mar 2021
Comparative advertising and IP
Comparative advertising can be an extremely effective business tool.
When done correctly, comparative advertising can:
enable consumers to make informed decisions about their…
Article \ 31 Oct 2019
Using the names of deceased celebrities as trade marks: Touching…
What ability do commercial enterprises have to use the names of well-known, deceased individuals who are otherwise unconnected with that enterprise as brand names? Two recent examples have highlighted that, surprisingly to some, there are relatively few legal limits on this practice in New Zealand.
Article \ 10 Jun 2019
The risky business of streaming devices: New Zealand Courts find…
New Zealand’s primary subscription television provider, Sky Network Television has successfully prevented, in two separate proceedings, the advertisement and sale in New Zealand of multimedia streaming devices intended to circumvent subscription TV services. This has been achieved without needing to pursue the entities hosting infringing content, or end-users of the devices as primary infringers of copyright, in part by alleging that the sellers’ marketing claims were unlawful under consumer protection legislation.