IPONZ clarifies guidance on trademark disclaimers in New Zealand
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

IPONZ clarifies guidance on trademark disclaimers in New Zealand

Sponsored by


Kathleen Henning and Kieran O'Connell of AJ Park explain the key takeaways from a recent case involving trademark disclaimers

A recent trademark decision by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) provides guidelines regarding the circumstances where disclaimers should be entered on the trademarks register.

The current approach regarding disclaimers

Disclaimers are statements on the register that disclaim exclusivity to certain elements of a trademark, such as descriptive words. A disclaimer constitutes an acknowledgement by the trademark owner that the disclaimed elements are non-distinctive and that use of the disclaimed elements by a third party would not amount to trademark infringement.

Under the previous Trade Marks Act 1953, all non-distinctive and descriptive trademark elements needed to be disclaimed. Under the current Trade Marks Act 2002, a more holistic approach has been adopted and disclaimers are not generally required. Nevertheless, disclaimers can still be entered on the register at the request of the applicant, or when required by the Commissioner so as to define the owner’s rights under the registration where it is in the public interest.

Flujo v Merisant – background

In Flujo Sanguineo Holdings Pty Ltd v Merisant Australia Pty Ltd and Merisant Company 2 SARL [2021] NZIPOTM 11, Merisant Australia Pty Ltd (the opponent) filed opposition proceedings against trademark application 1035524 (see Figure 1) in class 30 (the trademark application) in the name of Flujo Sanguineo Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant).

Figure 1

The opponent opposed the application on the grounds that the phrases “natural like sugar… only better” and “the 100% natural sweetener” (the phrases) were descriptive and that disclaimers were required to make it clear that the phrases were available for other traders to use.

Although the opponent conceded that the trademark as a whole was sufficiently distinctive to qualify for registration, it maintained that disclaimers were required. The opponent expressed its concern that the trademark application was an attempt by the applicant to achieve via a back door registered rights in relation to descriptive phrases, which “would have a chilling effect on legitimate competition… and create uncertainty as to the extent of [the applicant’s] monopoly in commonplace words”.

In consideration of these issues, the Commissioner referred to the Court of Appeal case Intellectual Reserve Inc v Robert Sintes (Intellectual Reserve) [2009] NZCA 305, which concerned a trademark application for FamilySearch.co.nz (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

In this case, the Court of Appeal had held that although the trademark was distinctive as a whole, to avoid “any misapprehension within the market”, a disclaimer must be entered on the register that the registration gives no right to exclusive use of the words ‘family search’.

Flujo v Merisant – conclusion

In Flujo Sanguineo v Merisant, the Commissioner held that there were two relevant questions to be answered, namely:

  • Are the phrases distinctive?

  • If not, is there a public interest in the non-distinctive phrases being disclaimed?

The Commissioner found that the phrases were non-distinctive and were prominent visual, aural and conceptual parts of the overall trademark. Consequently, there was a public interest in having uncertainty about the extent of rights in these phrases made clear.

It was held that the trademark application could proceed to registration on the condition that a disclaimer was recorded on the register that the registration did not give the owner exclusive right to use the phrases.


Trademark disclaimers are not generally required in New Zealand. However, the need for disclaimers may arise during opposition, particularly when an opponent has concerns about the rights that a trademark registration may give to a competitor for non-distinctive trademark elements.

If the opponent can show that the trademark elements are non-distinctive, and are a prominent visual, aural and conceptual part of the overall trademark, the Commissioner is likely to find there is a public interest in having a disclaimer entered on the register.


Kathleen Henning                                       

Trademark executive, AJ Park 

E: kathleen.henning@ajpark.com       


Kieran O’Connell

Principal, AJ Park

E: kieran.oconnell@ajpark.com


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns