manuka or tea-tree

The fight between the New Zealand and Australian producers of manuka honey is coming to a conclusion in court. The New Zealanders argue that manuka is a Maori word and so they alone should have the right to use it. They see their argument as parallel to the successful claim of the French to have sole use of the name champagne.  The Australians counter that the word manuka for the honey from the leptospermum tree (tea-tree)  has been in use in Australian English since the 1840s and so they have just as much right to use it as the New Zealanders.  They graciously allow the Kiwis to add a macron over the a if they feel they must. In New Zealand the spelling is mānuka but in Australia the spelling is simply a macronless manuka.

 I wrote up this story in 2019, providing examples of use mostly from Tasmania and Gippsland. If evidence of existing use in Australia carries any weight, then the New Zealanders don’t have a trademark case. But of course we all used the word champagne until the French won the rights to it and we had to talk about sparkling wine instead. The French argument was that the name applies to the wine grown in a specific region of France and therefore cannot mean wine of a similar kind produced elsewhere. Perhaps the threat of this appeal to a precedent is why the Australian government would prefer to have a manuka summit and plan to help both NZ and Oz beekeepers.

 Some notable celebrities have taken to this very special honey causing sales to increase, so there is a significant amount of money involved in being able to label your product manuka.  Australian beekeepers are gloomy about the prospect of  harvesting sweetness from the New Zealanders at a talkfest.  (I did tell myself that I would not stoop to honey jokes such as the ABC’s ‘ending a sticky trademark situation’, but it is irresistible).

 We will know whether Australian beekeepers are selling manuka or tea-tree honey by the end of the year.