A honey bee on a manuka tree in New Zealand. (Photo: iStock)
Singapore Australian beekeepers have surfaced victorious in the rearmost legal disagreement against New Zealand honey directors over the trademarking of the name” manuka.” On Monday( May 22), the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand issued a decision stating that the term” manuka honey” can not be registered as an instrument mark within New Zealand.
The Manuka Honey Appellation Society( MHAS) of New Zealand had sought to gain an instrument mark for the term” manuka honey.” Still, their sweats were opposed by the Australian Manuka Honey Association, which argued that the expression demanded sufficient distinctness be registered as an instrument mark in New Zealand. This disagreement is part of a longstanding disagreement between honey directors in both countries over the precious name.Â
In a recent development, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand has ruled against the enrollment of” manuka honey” as an instrument mark. It’s worth noting that last time, MHAS decided to discontinue its High Court appeal in the UK for trademarking the term” manuka honey” and also withdrew its operation for an instrument mark in the European Union.Â
Extended Legal Battle-
Originating from New Zealand, directors initiated the trademark operation for the term” manuka” in 2015, pressing its Maori roots and the strong association it holds with its nation. Manuka honey derives its name from a tree characterized by white flowers, which notions gather quenchers from to produce this unique honey known for its purported antibacterial and health parcels. Its exceptional quality has enabled manuka honey to command advanced prices in the global market.Â
Still, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand conceded that the manuka factory is indigenous to both New Zealand and Australia. It further stated that the term” manuka” is primarily descriptive.Â
The office clarified that a descriptive trademark, lacking distinctness, can not be registered for goods unless the mark has acquired distinctness through operation or other applicable circumstances.Â
After careful evaluation, the intellectual property office reached the conclusion that the Manuka Honey Appellation Society( MHAS) failed to establish the necessary distinctness, both essential and acquired, to secure the trademark for the term” manuka.” This case, honored as one of the most intricate and enduring proceedings to date, led the intellectual property office to order MHAS to repay the Australian Manuka Honey Association withNZ$ 6,430(US$ 4,000) to cover costs.Â
President of the Australian Manuka Honey Association, Ben McKee, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it validates their position held since the legal process began nearly eight times agone.
McKee emphasized that their product has a longstanding history of being honored as manuka honey, produced also to the New Zealand counterpart, and offering the largely sought-after antimicrobial parcels valued by consumers worldwide.Â
He further added that the decision represents a fair outgrowth, enabling Australian beekeepers to request their products equitably. Also, it aligns New Zealand with global precedents featuring ” manuka honey” as a descriptive term.Â
The New Zealand Association has the option to appeal the decision to the High Court to challenge the ruling. Expressing disappointment, Pita Tipene, Chair of New Zealand’s Manuka Charitable Trust, described the decision as disheartening on multiple fronts. He emphasized that the outgrowth has fueled their determination to guard what rightfully belongs to New Zealand and to cover the interests of consumers who value authenticity.Â
Tipene stated that they will take the necessary time to completely dissect the specifics of the ruling and precisely deliberate on the posterior conduct they should take.
