Sticky manuka branding brawl ends with win for Australian producers

Australian manuka honey producers are celebrating as NZ decides the term is “not sufficiently distinct” for any one group to claim ownership.

Australian producers are celebrating a sweet victory after a trans-Tasman tussle of extraordinary proportions over trademark rights for manuka honey.

The New Zealand Intellectual Property Office published its long-awaited decision on Monday into a 2015 application made by NZ’s Manuka Honey Appellation Society that sought to register the lucrative name as a certification trademark in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Australian Manuka Honey Association had strongly opposed the application, fearing a Kiwi victory would stop locals from using the moniker in a $1.2 billion global market.

However, in a written decision, trademarks assistant commissioner Natasha Alley found the term was not sufficiently distinct for any one group or company to claim ownership.

Ms Alley did state she had “considerable sympathy” for the position of MHAS due to cultural reasons, and because the term had not been widely used by Australian honey producers “until the NZ trade in manuka honey took off”.

Australian Manuka Honey Association chief executive Ben McKee.

“However, by the time MHAS applied for this certification mark in 2015 there was clear use of ‘manuka honey’ in Australia,” she said.

Ms Alley also wrote that “savvy marketing” by Australian honey producers “does not equate to dishonest trading on their part”.

“Nor does it justify registration of a purely descriptive word by MHAS as a certification mark in New Zealand,” she said.

AMHA president Ben McKee said Australian producers would now seek to increase supply into growing global markets, particularly the United States, Japan, China and Germany.

“This decision is a sensible outcome that ensures Aussie beekeepers can fairly market their produce,” Dr McKee said.

“AMHA will continue working towards providing global customers with verifiable assurances that the product they purchase is as described on the label.”

Ms Alley, who awarded costs of $6430 to the AMHA, also noted the manuka plant is native to both NZ and Australia.

Manuka honey.

“In fact, some scientists consider that Leptospermum scoparium originated in Australia, and migrated across the Tasman Sea to Aotearoa New Zealand,” she wrote.

Her decision follows earlier findings in the United Kingdom and Europe that manuka is a descriptive term.

Parties have 20 working days to appeal the sticky situation, which has reportedly cost the MHAS $6 million.

Earlier this year, the AMHA sent a stinging legal cease-and-desist across the ditch demanding a NZ advertising campaign indicating manuka honey made outside the country was not authentic be stopped.