MĀNUKA; MANUKA; HONEY; TRADEMARK
23 MAY 2023
Does a macron above the letter 'a' make a difference? In pronunciation, yes... but in an Australia vs New Zealand showdown over trademarks, honey, and money - there's more at stake.
In this BALANCER, we look at the facts behind the arguments from both sides of the Tasman Sea, over mānuka (or is it manuka?) honey.
INTRODUCTION
Since 2015, New Zealand - in the form of the Mānuka Honey Appellation Society - has been trying to certify mānuka honey as a distinctively New Zealand product.
And for a second time, it has failed.
This time, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) has ruled that the honey "commonly known as manuka.... simply describes the product name of the goods" and therefore cannot be trademarked.
The opposition came from the Australian Manuka Honey Association, which called the ruling "a great day for common sense".
But does either side truly have a claim to the golden nectar's market, which according to a report from Allied Market Research was valued at over USD $450m in 2021?
HISTORICALLY, WHICH CAME FIRST?
- Leptospermum scoparium has its geographical 'evolutionary centres' in Australia, South-east Asia, and central South America
- The time of its arrival in New Zealand is not certain - but pollen dating suggests it originated in Australia during the Miocene Period (approximately 20 million years ago) and was only "relatively recently" dispersed to New Zealand through strong winds and cyclones (nothing specific on how "relatively recently" that was)
- The plant is now more common in New Zealand than it is in Australia
- This research comes from the following report:
THE NEW ZEALAND ARGUMENT
- Mānuka is a Māori word, unique to New Zealand, therefore the trademark should be owned by groups/interests affiliated to the country.
- It is considered a taonga (treasure) by the Māori people which should be protected.
- The New Zealand Government has invested NZD $6m into the trademark case (in the United Kingdom, China, and in New Zealand) by supporting the country's honey producers and iwi (Māori tribes).
THE AUSTRALIAN ARGUMENT
- Australia makes no claim over the word mānuka (with the macron) or the pronunciation which comes with it.
- It quotes the Māori Language Commission, which cites manuka (without the macron) as having no meaning in the Māori language.
- Australia argues that if it can't brand its honey as manuka, then its industry will be adversely affected.
THE VERDICT(S)
NEW ZEALAND APPEARS TO HAVE LOST ON BOTH MANUKA AND MĀNUKA
Natasha Alley, the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks, Patents and Designs at the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) ruled as follows:
- Mānuka IS a Māori word, but it has been used widely in English - usually as manuka. She described it as an "English loanword", and although the tikanga (origins, customs, values) of the word had to be respected, they couldn't "override clear provisions in the Trade Marks Act, which I am required to apply."
- Alley called manuka a "descriptive word with Māori origins" and said she didn't believe that "allowing one association ownership of a certification mark that gives it a monopoly over the use of a descriptive word with Māori origins, to the exclusion of others including potentially some Māori honey producers, is consistent with tikanga principles."
- IPONZ also said there could be no exclusive rights to the word mānuka (with the macron)
FURTHER READING ON THE TRADEMARK CASES
Manuka Honey certification mark application unsuccessful
IPONZ
22 May 2023
New Zealand mānuka honey producers lose trademark bid
RNZ
22 May 2023
Trademarks commissioner rejects Govt-backed bid to own ‘mānuka honey’
Newsroom
22 May 2023