Australian manuka honey producers have won another battle in a long running trans-Tasman war over who can use the distinctive word, manuka.
In a decision handed down this morning, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) said the New Zealand-based Manuka Honey Appellation Society's (MHAS) bid to trademark the word was unsuccessful.
New Zealand bans the import of any honey products, but the Australian Manuka Honey Association decided in 2021 to oppose the move to trademark the word.
IPONZ described the proceeding as "one of the most complex and long running" it had ever dealt with, ultimately ruling that "MHAS has fallen short of establishing the necessary distinctiveness, both inherent and acquired" to trademark the word manuka.
The decision comes just months after a similar ruling in the UK that also sided with Australian producers.
"This decision is a sensible outcome that ensures Aussie beekeepers can fairly market their produce," said Australian Manuka Honey Association chairman Ben McKee in a statement.
"It also sees NZ following other precedents around the world that manuka honey is a descriptive term.
"The fact that even authorities in New Zealand cannot find a way to support the trademark claims of NZ producers should, we hope, bring this legal dispute to an end once and for all."
Bitter war
The long-running fight, described by IPONZ as "a trans-Tasman tussle of extraordinary proportions over trademark rights for manuka honey", stretches back to 2016 when Australian producers first moved to block their NZ counterparts.
The honey they are fighting over sells for up to $500 per kilogram and is only produced from a single plant, Leptospermum scoparium.
In its "finely balanced" decision, IPONZ said there was substantial evidence to support the claim that the plant grows natively in both countries.
Assistant commissioner Natasha Alley said in the finding IPONZ had "considerable sympathy" for MHAS' position on the cultural significance of manuka honey to Maori people, and because "there does not appear to have been widespread use of the term 'manuka honey' by Australian honey producers until the New Zealand trade in manuka honey took off".
Despite this, the ruling said "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".
The MHAS, which was backed by $6 million from the NZ government, was ordered to pay costs of $6,430 to the Australian producer group.
