New Zealand: Who owns trademark rights in the haka Ka Mate?

IPONZ rules against attempts to obtain trade mark rights in the haka Ka Mate.

In Te Runanga O Toa Rangatira Incorporated v Prokiwi International Limited [2012] NZIPOTM 14 (1 June 2012), Assistant Commissioner Walden was tasked with deciding an opposition¹ to the registration of four word marks, each comprising a phrase from the haka Ka Mate. The haka Ka Mate is a traditional Ma-ori dance, often performed as a challenge and, in the words of the Assistant Commissioner, "a powerful reference to New Zealand, which appears to be largely attributable to its performance by the All Blacks rugby team since 1905" (at 48).

Background

The four word marks were important phrases from the haka Ka Mate, KA MATE, UPANE KAUPANE, WHITI TE RA and KA ORA, with each translated as follows:

• KA MATE: Will it be death?
• UPANE KAUPANE: Up one step, then up another.
• WHITI TE RA: Into the sun.
• KA ORA: Will it be life?

The composer of the haka Ka Mate was Nga-ti Toa Rangatira. The applicant for registration was Te Ru-nanga O Toa Rangatira Incorporated, who was found to have the mandated authority to apply for registration of the marks on behalf of Nga-ti Toa Rangatira's tribe (hence overcoming the ground of opposition based on the applicant's entitlement to claim ownership of the marks).

The opponent, Prokiwi International Limited, is a New Zealand company specialising in the sale of souvenirs and New Zealand themed memorabilia.

In essence the opponent argued that registration of the marks should be refused because the marks had no distinctive character, and that the marks were signs or indications that had become customary in the current language or in established trade practices.

A lack of distinctive character

The applicant was unable to prove that any of the four phrases had distinctive character for the purpose of the Trade Marks Act 2002. The test applies was that of W & G du Cros Ltd's Application² .

Under du Cros, the key to determining whether a mark is distinctive requires consideration of whether "...other traders are likely, in the ordinary course of their business and without any improper motive, to desire to use the same mark, or some mark nearly resembling it, upon or in connection with their own goods [and services]".

The Assistant Commissioner held that each of the four marks failed this test, finding that the evidence was clear other traders would legitimately want to use the "entire" wording of the haka Ka Mate, because of its connection with New Zealand heritage.

The Assistant Commissioner then considered whether use of the entire wording of the haka Ka Mate constituted use of each opposed mark, despite it being common ground between the parties that each mark is distinct to the haka Ka Mate as a complete work. Again, the decision turned against the applicant, given:

• Use by other traders under the du Cros test does not require the use to be trade mark use.
• Each mark is a "recognisable phase" of the haka Ka Mate
• Honest traders would be hindered in using the haka Ka Mate for New Zealand themed merchandise and commercial sporting events because they would be uncertain whether they were exposed to infringement proceedings.

As such the opponent was successful on this ground of opposition.

Customary use

The issue here was whether, at the date of application, each mark had become customary in the current language, or in established trade practices, in respect of the applicant's goods and services of interest. While the evidence showed that a number of traders had made use of the words of the haka Ka Mate, there was nothing to suggest that at the relevant date each mark had fallen into generic use in respect of the applicant's goods/services.

Concluding comments

With the phrases forming such a significant part of New Zealand's public domain, obtaining a monopoly³ in the words was always likely to prove an uphill battle. However, the Assistant Commissioner made some interesting observations that may assist other trade mark owners faced with the same issue, including:

• Despite use by a number of traders, each of the marks was unlikely to be viewed as generic for the goods and services in question "...in the same way that 'treat' is in the desert industry".
• The proprietor of a trade mark in New Zealand is the first person to use the mark in New Zealand, and the threshold for establishing such prior use is low.
• There was no evidence the applications were merely defensive and the applicant's evidence was sufficient to show an intention to use.

With this in mind, it just may be that key phrases of a new haka are eligible for at least some degree of trade mark protection. However, keeping control of that use is another issue.

Footnotes

¹ Journal. There is then a three month period where the application may be objected to (or opposed), by a third party. If no opposition is made the patent application will proceed to grant.

Any party that has an interest in the subject matter of the patent can oppose acceptance. The grounds that can be used to oppose a patent application include lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure of the invention.

Not all countries have an opposition period on patent applications. For country specific information, contact your IP advisor.

²In most jurisdictions patent applications are subjected to an examination process to determine whether the subject matter is novel and inventive. The terms "application", "pending" or "patent application" are used to describe the status of the application up to grant.

³In most jurisdictions patent applications are subjected to an examination process to determine whether the subject matter is novel and inventive. The terms "application", "pending" or "patent application" are used to describe the status of the application up to grant.