Sticky end to Kiwi Manuka honey ‘heist’

Australian honey producers win major legal victory against New Zealand in the ongoing dispute over Manuka honey.

And the winner is … Australian Manuka.

A sticky trans-Tasman tussle over who has the right to sell Manuka honey has reached an inter­national turning point after the UK Intellectual Property Office threw out an application by a group of Kiwi producers to trademark the highly priced nectar.

For almost five years, New Zealand producers, represented by the Manuka Honey Appellation Society, have tried to trademark the words “Manuka honey”, claiming the term is of Maori origin and that its most authentic and guaranteed source can only be procured in New ­Zealand.

The Australian Manuka Honey Association has disputed their claims, saying the plant from which it is derived, Leptospermum scoparium, flourishes on both sides of the Tasman and cannot reasonably be described as an exclusively Kiwi product.

The market is forecast to be worth $1.27bn globally by 2027.

A decision by the UK’s IPO on Wednesday ruled that while the honey was clearly derived from the Maori word “Mãnuka”, it did not prevent the phrase “entering the Eng­lish language as a descriptive word” and there was no persuasive evidence to suggest the public “understand that it (the honey) exclusively originates from New Zealand”.

Responding to the UK ruling on Wednesday, AMHA chairman Paul Callander said it was a “great victory” for Australian producers, describing the battle as “David pitted against Goliath”.

“New Zealand has got the funding of their government behind them, but sense has prevailed because we grow Manuka in Australia and the Leptospermum tree that produces the honey is exactly the same plant as they’ve got in New Zealand.

“In fact, we think it came from here. So for them to claim that it’s just a New Zealand product is farcical,” he said.

While it’s tempting to compare the Manuka dispute to the longstanding quarrel over the origins of the pavlova, Mr Callander said its ramifications were “far from trivial”.

“This is not just about the honey. It‘s all about value and products with the science behind that also allows us to manufacture things like wound gels, pro­biotics and skincare. It also sets a precedent on trade. So if you can trademark the nectar from a certain plant and call it your own, then anybody can trademark anything. Free-trade agreements would just go out the window.”

Since 2017, New Zealand producers have sought to trademark the “liquid gold” in the US, the EU, New Zealand and China. However, no jurisdiction has agreed to register the trademark.

A decision from the New Zealand IPO is expected at the beginning of 2022, after the NZMHA applied for a certification trademark in 2019.

“I hope this will be a turning point and set a precedent,” Mr Callander said. “We have been requesting the Kiwis to collaborate with us for four years instead of fighting legal battles, and they rebuffed us every single time.”

As well as declining the application for trademark, the UK IPO awarded full legal costs to the AMHA.