Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 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 (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 



Kieran O’Connell

Principal, AJ Park



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Federal Circuit said tech firms can challenge the way the USPTO implemented Fintiv, but that won’t mean much for practitioners, say counsel
The England and Wales High Court handed down one of the most hotly anticipated FRAND rulings for some time
Funders discuss different IP portfolio funding options and how they decide whether to offer preferential terms and pricing