New Zealand: MBIE proposes amendments to IP legislation

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

New Zealand: MBIE proposes amendments to IP legislation

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has released a discussion paper inviting submissions on potential amendments to New Zealand's patent, trademark, and design legislation.

The full discussion paper is available at www.mbie.govt.nz. Several of the more significant proposals are discussed below.

Patents Act 2013

"Daisy-chaining"

MBIE considers that the practice of "daisy-chaining" divisional applications, which "allows an originally filed parent application to be kept pending for up to 20 years," is not in the public's interest. To address this, MBIE proposes introducing a deadline of 12 months from issuance of the first examination report in the original parent application for putting all divisional applications in order for acceptance.

It is expected that most submissions will be opposed to this change. The existing requirement for requesting examination within five years of the antedated filing date, itself not without controversy following introduction in the 2013 act, already ensures that patent applications under that act can no longer remain pending for "up to 20 years". Further restrictions may be premature.

Applications under the Patents Act 1953

MBIE further proposes amending the transitional provisions of the 2013 act so that divisional applications made under the 1953 act, which can continue to be daisy-chained throughout their 20-year term, will be examined under the stricter novelty inventive step and support requirements of the 2013 act.

Previous consultation on this issue suggests that submissions will likely be mixed, with local manufacturers generally supportive, but at least some practitioners opposed to the change.

Exhaustion of patent rights

MBIE proposes explicitly adopting the doctrine of exhaustion in relation to patent rights. A New Zealand patent will be of no use to a patentee in controlling further sales or parallel importation of a product originally sold with the patentee's authority (whether domestically or internationally).

Exhaustion of patent rights is yet to be tested in the New Zealand courts, but the Trade Mark and Copyright Acts already contain similar provisions.

This proposal is not expected to be overly controversial. Contractual clauses and regulatory restrictions on importation of products into New Zealand may continue to apply, and there is no proposal to add a similar provision to the Designs Act.

Trade Marks Act 2002

Series marks

MBIE proposes removing the provisions for series marks, which presently allow for several marks to be filed as a single application if they differ only in non-distinctive ways. Around 50% of series marks are filed incorrectly, which indicates misunderstanding of their purpose or criteria. In order to provide greater clarity and reduce administrative costs, MBIE proposes completely removing series marks, rather than provide increased guidance, criteria, or costs. Despite facing similar filing issues, UK and Australian trade mark laws still provide for series marks. Further, given our Supreme Court's narrowing of the interpretation of "distinctive character" of a trade mark, applicants may have real cause for concern at losing the ability to file series marks.

Prior continuous use

The act currently provides a rigorous priority system, with extremely narrow options for achieving registration in the face of a blocking registration. The current exceptions of "honest concurrent use" and "other special circumstances" are interpreted so narrowly that neither allows for "prior continuous use." MBIE proposes what is considered a welcome change for many practitioners, to specifically provide an exception for "prior continuous use", similar to that under section 44(4) of the Australian Trade Marks Act 1995.

Process

Submissions close on August 2 2019. MBIE will then seek government approval to draft an Amendment Bill and introduce it to parliament.

halberg.jpg
huthwaite.jpg

Ben Halberg

Thomas Huthwaite


Baldwins Intellectual PropertyLevel 15, HSBC House, 1 Queen St, Auckland 1010, New ZealandTel: +64 9 373 3137Fax: +64 9 373 2123email@baldwins.comwww.baldwins.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
Gift this article