M¯anuka honey producers dealt blow
WELLINGTON: The ma¯nuka honey industry has been dealt another blow — it has lost its bid to trademark the term ‘‘ma¯nuka honey’’ in New Zealand.
The Ma¯nuka Honey Appellation Society has been working to protect the term since 2015 so that only honey from New Zealand can be called ma¯nuka.
It argues that ma¯nuka is a Ma¯ori word and a distinctive product of New Zealand.
But the Australian Manuka Honey Association has been appealing the effort in multiple markets — saying honey produced there can also be called ma¯nuka.
In a justreleased decision, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand found the society’s certification mark bid did not meet necessary requirements.
‘‘This case represents a transtasman tussle of extraordinary proportions over trademark rights for ma¯nuka honey,’’ the ruling said.
‘‘It is one of the most complex and longrunning proceedings to have come before the Intellectual Property
Office of New Zealand.’’
It ordered the society to pay the Australian Manuka Honey Association costs of $6430.
In 2021 the United Kingdom rejected a bid by the Ma¯nuka Honey Appellation Society to trademark the term ‘‘ma¯nuka honey’’ there.
But the society vowed to continue its fight and earlier this year refiled court proceedings in the UK and with the European Union.
The Australian Manuka Association welcomed the New Zealand trademark win.
It was a ‘‘commonsense outcome’’, the association said in a statement.
Australian Manuka Honey Association chairman Ben McKee said the group was delighted with the judgement.
‘‘It confirms what we have been saying since New Zealand producers began this legal process nearly eight years ago — our product has a long history of being recognised as manuka honey, it is produced like the New Zealand product is, and it also offers the soughtafter antimicrobial properties that consumers around the world value so highly.’’
Mr McKee said the decision would ensure Australian beekeepers could fairly market their produce, and the term manuka honey was a descriptive term.
‘‘The fact that even authorities in New Zealand cannot find a way to support the trademark claims of New Zealand producers should, we hope, bring this legal dispute to an end once and for all,’’ he said.
Mr McKee said it was only a particular group of New Zealand
The Ma¯nuka Honey Appellation Society argues that ma¯nuka is a Ma¯ori word and a distinctive product of New Zealand. producers, under the umbrella of the Ma¯nuka Honey Appellation Society (MHAS), which had spearheaded the trademark campaign, and there were other New Zealand beekeepers and industry members who were prepared to work more collaboratively with the Australian industry.
The New Zealandbased Ma¯nuka Charitable Trust said it was disappointed but undeterred by Intellectual Property Office ruling on ma¯nuka honey.
‘‘Today’s finding reflects the technicalities and limitations of conventional IP law to protect indigenous rights.
‘‘It is disappointing in so many ways, but our role as kaitiaki [guardians] to protect the mana, mauri, and value of our taonga species, including ma¯nuka on behalf of all New Zealanders is not contestable,’’ Ma¯nuka Charitable Trust chairman Pita Tipene said.
‘‘We remain resolute in protecting our reo Ma¯ori [language] and the precious taonga [treasure] and today’s ruling in no way deters us.
‘‘If anything, it has made us more determined to protect what is ours on behalf of all New Zealanders and consumers who value authenticity.
‘‘We will take some time to absorb the details of the ruling and consider our next steps,’’ Mr Tipene said.
Industry partners also remain steadfast in their resolve the ma¯nuka honey name belongs and should refer only to products produced in New Zealand.
The lack of recognition of indigenous rights in the intellectual property regime was well established both in New Zealand and overseas, Mr Tipene said.
‘‘It is time the New Zealand government took urgent action and committed sufficient funding to address these issues as raised in the Wai 262 [Waitangi Tribunal] claim and recognised in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,’’ he said. — RNZ