The long running campaign by New Zealand’s Manuka Honey Appellation Society (MHAS) to trademark and claim ownership of the name “Manuka honey” has suffered a major setback as it withdraws its appeal on earlier rulings in the UK and European union.
Australian Manuka Honey Association (AMHA) chair Paul Callander said: “For five years, the AMHA has been battling the New Zealand MHAS in multiple jurisdictions over their attempts to trademark the term Manuka as exclusively their own.
“The MHAS backdown means the UK IPO ruling of December 2021 in Australian beekeepers’ favour stands, and there is no restraint or trademark on Manuka naming rights.”
In its findings, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) accepted there was significant evidence that the general public understands manuka honey is not produced exclusively in New Zealand, but rather originates from a number of places including Australia.
MHAS sought to trademark the term in the US, Europe, New Zealand, and China. No region has agreed to register the trademark, with the New Zealand IPO delaying its hearing in April 2021.
Manuka honey originates from bees that collect the nectar of a particular kind of shrub of the Leptospermum genus, with Australia home to 85 of the 87 known Leptospermum species worldwide. Australia has produced manuka honey since European honeybees were introduced in the 1820s.
The international Manuka honey market is forecast to be worth around $1.27 billion in annual trade by 2027, with Manuka honey products can selling for between $300-500 per kilo.
Callander said there was growing demand for the product from consumption to medicinal uses and wellbeing products. the greater certainty in the UK and Europe would allow Australian Manuka growers to enjoy their share of this demand.
“This victory provides our industry with a noble precedent against some in New Zealand who are attempting to monopolise the term Manuka Honey for their own commercial gain.
“Leptospermum, the plant which produces Manuka, is a native of both New Zealand and Australia, and the term Manuka honey has long been used in Australia to describe this unique honey. Australian growers have every right to use the word to describe their produce, as upheld by the UK Courts.”
Despite long term support for the industry, the federal government was slow to offer support to fight the MHAS campaign. After initial silence, a plea from the AMHA and other stakeholders rallied the government behind the group.
The departments of trade and agriculture nurtured the industry including through grants to develop industries, R&D, and development of elite clonal genetics to produce high grade Manuka honey plantations across the country.
“The Attorney General’s office assisted us with funding to allow us to continue to fight further legal engagements, which increased our capability to defend our industry. This support rallied our resolve at a time when the Australian beekeeping industry had expended significant amounts of money mounting defences in various jurisdictions,” Callander said.
The New Zealand MHAS will be liable for costs, pursuant to procedural rules in the UK.
“Frustratingly, the AMHA have spent a lot of time and money on the preparation of a detailed response to the appeal, which was already filed when the surrender occurred.
“I do hope our efforts led somewhat to the MHAS re-thinking their position. Clearly there has been a change of thinking by the New Zealand group, and hopefully we can spend our time and money working together to promote this wonderful medicinal honey to the world, rather than fighting over naming rights,” Callander said.
