Abstract
The latest decision in relation to the MANUKA HONEY CTM application by New Zealand manuka honey producers and decisions to the same effect in Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) highlight the impact of core legal standards, in particular distinctiveness, the differences in registration requirements between jurisdictions, and policy issues for certification trade marks ( CTMs). This article first considers the distinctiveness requirements for CTMs and compares the approaches in Australia, New Zealand, UK and the EU primarily through the lens of the MANUKA HONEY decisions, before going on to consider other registration requirements for CTMs. The article makes some comparative observations where that is apt and considers the implications of the decisions for CTM use as an alternative to sui generis geographical indications (SGGIs) before formulating some overall conclusions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 49-58 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | European Intellectual Property Review |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2024 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The Manuka Honey Certification Trade Mark: Approaches in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and the European Union'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver