IPONZ clarifies guidance on trademark disclaimers in New Zealand
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

IPONZ clarifies guidance on trademark disclaimers in New Zealand

Sponsored by

aj-park.png
mae-mu-c5zsv-p-yi-unsplash.jpg

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).

66ba35e839744653ae4600e0f40f4428
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).

386a7d11bba6415f9488584d7c81922a
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.

Conclusion

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

Mark Lemley explains how his firm helped secure a precedential victory in a design patent case involving spare automobile parts
A historic treaty on traditional knowledge and genetic resources, which could have ramifications for patent applicants and their representatives, has been agreed
Ahead of the first anniversary of the UPC, practitioners share how the court has kept them busy and look ahead to emerging trends
Three counsel who joined Boies Schiller explain why the firm will help them advise both plaintiffs and defendants
The Grand Board said the applied-for mark would ‘trivialise’ one of the deadliest pandemics in history
Tim Chen Saulsbury explains why single-craft artisans inspire him and how, even at home, he’s never too far from another IP lawyer
The firm also plans to build an entertainment practice group and up its IP and antitrust offerings with a focus on foreign clients
An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
Counsel say a Federal Circuit ruling on the obviousness test for design patents may increase the time IP owners spend defending their rights
With INTA Annual Meeting over for another year, here are a few things Managing IP learned after attending IP’s biggest party
Gift this article