Mānuka Trademark ‘Likely to Offend Māori’: IPONZ Committee

The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) has notified Mānuka Charitable Trust that its mānuka trademark design “is likely to offend Māori” because it resembles a moko kauae — the traditional Māori tattoo worn by women on their chin.

The Mānuka Charitable Trust trademark which remains unregistered as a certification trademark in any market.

IPONZ’s Māori Trade Marks Advisory Committee’s (the Committee) determination that trademark use of the design may offend “a significant section of the community, including Māori” has stood as an objection to Mānuka Charitable Trust’s (MCT) mānuka honey certification trademark application for 16 months from 19 February 2025, files released under the Official Information Act reveal.

The Committee, which by law must be consulted on design marks that contain Māori elements, has also raised concern over MCT’s attempt to trademark the word “mānuka”, considering that the plant is a taonga (owned) species. Single-entity ownership of a trademark whose “distinctive, dominant element” was the name of a taonga species would “conflict with Māori views of collective ownership”, IPONZ has relayed to MCT.

(This report references several Māori words. Definitions provided by IPONZ are noted in the accompanying graphic. Single-word approximate translations are used after the first usage in our text for ease of understanding. Some Māori words have multiple translation options where none fit perfectly.)

As of this writing, the fate of the committee’s objection was unclear. What is certain is that MCT has laid down a challenge to the committee. It seems equally clear that, as two Māori entities argue the storylines of their distant past, and the Committee feels for the dimensions of MTC’s present, the already decade-long mānuka trademark campaign will enter its second decade of complex and costly legal moves to uncertain result. 

“The trust is standing strong and is not afraid to go back into those courtrooms and have its say...", MCT said in response to the committee’s objection on 19 February 2026, a year to the day that IPONZ had relayed it to MCT’s attorney. IPONZ reported on 6 June 2026 that it awaited a committee decision on whether it would accept MCT’s arguments.

The Ordinary and the Sacred

IPONZ notified MCT of the committee’s view that there are “…potential issues around the granting of a right to exclusively use certain elements of Māori culture, as this is generally at odds with the concept of collective ownership and benefit of mātauranga (knowledge) — especially where there is no acknowledgement of Māori origins or sources that are critical to the product or service”.

“The trade mark appears to be a moko kauae. Moko kauae are traditional Māori tattoo worn by women on their chin,” IPONZ relayed. “Traditional Māori art and design form an important part of Māori identity and culture as they communicate a story and have deep meaning, and are therefore considered to be of significance to Māori.

“The Committee is concerned that the use of the moko kauae, in combination with the goods, including foodstuffs, all considered to be noa (ordinary), could convey a contrary message or be a derogatory inference. That is, to associate a device that is tapu (sacred) with goods that are noa signifies an attempt to lift the tapu of moko kauae, and therefore appears offensive.”

“No Single Authority”

The Māori Trade Marks Advisory Committee of the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand has identified the design in the Mānuka Charitable Trust tohu (symbol or logo) as a moko kauae, a traditional Māori tattoo worn by women on their chin.

“Taonga species,” IPONZ continued in its report on the Committee’s opinion, “have cultural references and associated practices for Māori, and are associated with collective ancestry, mātauranga and tikanga (protocol). A trade mark that consists solely of the name of a taonga species will be considered tapu because of this. One trader having exclusive rights in a mark containing the name of a taonga species conflicts with Māori views of collective ownership. There is no single authority who can provide consent for the use of a taonga species in a trade mark. For these reasons, a mark containing the name of a taonga species is likely to be considered offensive to Māori.”

Shunting the Locomotive

Credentials of the Committee’s five advisors include tenure, teaching, or advisory positions with the universities of Auckland, Victoria, and Canterbury. Fields of professional experience include Māori art, architecture, and iconography; business, cultural, and intellectual property rights; data sovereignty; language revitalisation; museology; tikanga and mātauranga awareness; and trademark law.

The advisors are selected for their knowledge of te ao Māori (Māori worldview) and tikanga but their advice ultimately is non-binding as rejection of an application can be appealed to the High Court. Still, IPONZ’s registration of a trademark that was proved to offend a “significant section of the community, including Māori” would breach 17(1)(c) of the Trade Mark Act 2002.

MCT filed its trademark application with IPONZ on 11 June 2024. After the passage of two years, the origin and purpose of MCT, which is called a “trader” by advisors who hold the power to shunt its locomotive onto a siding, seems not understood. The advisors cannot be blamed for stabbing in the dark. MCT maintains a perfunctory signpost-scale website, communicates mainly through Facebook, and last produced a newsletter in April 2021.

The Committee’s objection has coaxed out of MCT a story that links a mānuka tree to the moko kauae. This story describes “an elevated platform not far from where tipuna (ancestors) lived…” where “they practiced the art of tāmoko by a tree, a mānuka tree…” MCT narrated in its response to the Committee. “That particular tree was utilised to make the ink, the sacred leaves, and to make the cleaning process that would help the moko sit properly inside the chin. When you mix these together, you get this beautiful marking system that came out of the tree, that was embedded into chins, which makes you part and parcel of that tree and that is a tree whakapapa” (line of descent).

To answer the charge that MCT as a single operator could not trademark a taonga, MCT used passive tense. MCT “is the Mānuka Charitable Trust…” and  “…has been established to act as kaitaki (guardian) to protect the mana and mauri (vital essence) of mānuka”. Established by whom and under what industry and legal conditions is history that remains undisclosed. Neither do the seven “guiding principles” reprinted from the MCT trust deed illuminate origin.  

Mixed Messaging

The creator of the MCT design is Sir Derek Lardelli, a celebrated Māori visual artist, graphic designer, master of tā moko (traditional Māori tattooing), composer, and teacher. He was knighted in 2020 for services to Māori art.

On the website of IP Australia, “insect” and “bee” appear as “indexing constituents” of the image in the MCT trademark, which Southern Cross Intellectual Property filed on 17 December 2024.

The tohu in the mark may be chameleon in nature — a moko kauae to the inner circle and the face of a bee to those outside. Ironically, for the apiculture industry, that bee is not the native solitary bee that does not produce honeycomb but the European honeybee that does.

No Two Ways

Before the Committee registered concern over MCT’s application for reasons of tikanga, IPONZ had highlighted potential conflict with trademarks that contained the word “manuka” and were already registered or under examination. “Confusingly similar” — “manuka” in one mark with “manuka” in another! — is grounds for rejection.

MCT is learning it may not be able to have it both ways — the United States Patent and Trademark Office has said it cannot use the words “manuka honey” without disclaiming exclusive right to “manuka”, but the tohu is fine. IPONZ’s final position on the tohu will remain unclear until the Committee’s response to MCT’s arguments is known.

Even if the tohu is greenlighted and mark conflicts overcome, the question of whether a taonga species name can become part of a certification trademark that confers the right of control may take an age to answer.  

Bruce Roscoe is a Japan-resident researcher and former foreign correspondent and securities analyst. He has studied the mānuka trademark cases since the first filing in New Zealand in August 2015.