Comvita Requests MCT Withdraw Trademark Opposition

Finding itself with money on both sides of a US trademark case (as detailed in Mānuka Charitable Trust Scores Own Goal in Trademark Attack on Comvita Mānuka Honey Cosmetics), Comvita Ltd. has formally requested that Mānuka Charitable Trust (MCT) withdraws their opposition to the Caravan Honey Co. application. However, MCT has confirmed they will be following their process, claiming the integrity of New Zealand’s mānuka honey is at stake.

Comvita’s “formal request” was made of MCT in the penultimate week of January, following MCT’s opposition filing against ‘THE MĀNUKA EFFECT’ trademark application to the US Patent and Trademark Office on January 5 and subsequent requests from Apiarist’s Advocate seeking clarity as to both sides’ respective positions on the matter.

Website claims from aunubeauty.com regarding the source of their honey, Comvita. But it is not good enough for the Manuka Charitable Trust who have stated, ‘ … marketing statements do not provide the Trust with authority or certainty should circumstances shift.’

Chair of Te Pitau, MCT’s operating arm, Kristen Kohere-Soutar says the matter will be discussed when their Legal Advisory Committee meets on February 10. Even then a change in tact looks unlikely though, with the Trust releasing a statement to Apiarist’s Advocate detailing their position on the matter of foreign-owned brands using so-called New Zealand mānuka honey.

‘Decisions to maintain or withdraw an opposition are made only once the Legal Advisory Committee is satisfied that the mana, mauri, and long-term value of mānuka are appropriately protected,’ the statement reads.

The Trust’s legal committee is made up of, Kohere-Soutar, Lynell Tuffery-Huria (Te Pitau director), Tony Wright (UMF Honey Association CEO) and Marcus Rudkin (representing Honey New Zealand (International) Ltd.). Interestingly, until he left the company in August 2024, Comvita CEO David Banfield was at times an invitee, for specific matters.

The brandmark which Mānuka Charitable Trust hopes to gain certification trademark for in key mānuka honey markets in an effort to authenticate mānuka honey supply.

The brand at the centre of the trademark dispute is Aunu, supplied by Caravan Honey Ltd, of which Comvita previously held as much as a 50% ownership share. Having impaired (equivalent to writing-down its book value) that investment to a carrying value of nil at 30 June 2024, Comvita say they no longer have an ownership stake in the North American company.

‘At this time (30 June 2024), the investment was still in the development stage and further funding was required to support the launch of the products commercially.  Due to the uncertainty of securing funding, our investment was impaired at this time,’ Comvita have stated to Apiarist’s Advocate.

Comvita’s request to MCT to withdraw opposition is based off their position that Aunu is ‘solely using New Zealand sourced Mānuka honey in its products’.

‘While Comvita no longer has an ownership interest in Caravan, we continue to have an ongoing commercial arrangement with the business. We continue to supply Caravan with premium Comvita™ Medihoney™ sourced from New Zealand and Caravan have built their brand on selling genuine New Zealand Mānuka honey sourced from Comvita,’ they state.

MCT’s statement makes their position clear though: ‘Supply alone does not equate to control’.

MCT states, ‘Where a foreign entity owns the trademark, there is no binding obligation that future sourcing remains exclusively with New Zealand, nor that product claims continue to align with New Zealand definitions of genuine mānuka honey. In those circumstances, offshore brand owners are legally free to substitute Australian tea tree or blended material while continuing to trade on the mānuka name, undermining consumer trust and eroding the mana and mauri of the species.’

While the Trust looks long term, Comvita’s statement on the matter outlines the impact that could have on the mānuka honey industry now.

‘Comvita has a deep partnership with Caravan, who are experts in skincare, and show a commitment to improving the marketing of Mānuka honey on the world stage. Through this relationship, Comvita and the broader industry benefit from increased knowledge by customers of Mānuka and Mānuka honey globally, and what it takes to win in different categories,’ the honey exporter states.

Full statement of position from Mānuka Charitable Trust’s Legal Advisory Committee, January 30 2026:

The Legal Advisory Committee’s (LAC) policy of opposing trademark applications by non-New Zealand entities is grounded in a simple principle: once control over the use of the word mānuka sits offshore, New Zealand loses the ability to safeguard its integrity, provenance, and cultural value. Mānuka is a taonga species, not a generic descriptor, and where ownership and enforcement rights are held outside New Zealand, there are limited practical mechanisms to prevent misuse, dilution, or misappropriation of the term over time.

The Committee recognises that many New Zealand companies supply bulk mānuka honey to international and white-label brands, and that these supply relationships are commercially important. However, supply alone does not equate to control. Where a foreign entity owns the trademark, there is no binding obligation that future sourcing remains exclusively with New Zealand, nor that product claims continue to align with New Zealand definitions of genuine mānuka honey. In those circumstances, offshore brand owners are legally free to substitute Australian tea tree or blended material while continuing to trade on the mānuka name, undermining consumer trust and eroding the mana and mauri of the species.

For this reason, the LAC’s default position is to file oppositions to foreign trademark applications where ownership or long-term sourcing intent is uncertain. Trademark law operates on strict timeframes, and failure to oppose at the outset can permanently remove the ability to act later. Lodging an opposition does not pre-judge the outcome; it preserves options while appropriate diligence is undertaken to assess whether the integrity of mānuka will, in fact, be upheld with the trade mark use.

Where the ongoing supply of New Zealand mānuka honey is said to be critical to an offshore brand, the Committee’s view is that protection should be embedded in enforceable commercial arrangements. This includes rights around exclusive New Zealand sourcing, audit and verification, or the ability to withdraw supply if standards or representations change. Absent those mechanisms, assurances or marketing statements do not provide the Trust with authority or certainty should circumstances shift.

This approach is not intended to restrict legitimate trade or New Zealand businesses operating internationally. The LAC does not oppose New Zealand-owned entities, nor does it seek to impede export relationships. Rather, the policy reflects a broader mandate to prevent long-term commodification of mānuka and sits alongside the development of the Certified Trade Mark (CTM), which provides a positive pathway for international brands to participate under clear rules and enforceable obligations. Decisions to maintain or withdraw an opposition are made only once the Legal Advisory Committee is satisfied that the mana, mauri, and long-term value of mānuka are appropriately protected.’