For grocery suppliers and retailers, a logo suggesting certification can be a valuable commercial asset. It can distinguish products, support a premium price and communicate qualities that shoppers cannot readily verify themselves.
But when shoppers interpret a logo as a sign of certification, is it actually a registered certification trade mark, or another type of mark or claim?
My recent research, spanning three empirical studies of registration, scheme rules and marketplace use, suggests that the appearance of certification does not necessarily reflect a mark’s legal status.
To understand why this matters, it helps to distinguish two types of trade marks. Most trade marks are standard trade marks: brand names and logos that distinguish one business’s goods or services from those of others. For example, the Anchor name on butter identifies its commercial source. It does not, by itself, indicate independent certification of particular product qualities.
Registered certification trade marks serve a different purpose. They indicate that specified characteristics have been certified. New Zealand’s certification trade mark framework requires scrutiny of the certifier’s independence and competence, alongside publicly available rules governing certification and access to the scheme. These additional requirements do not apply to standard trade marks.
Yet a logo can suggest certification without being registered as a certification trade mark. In a study covering 1,940 grocery products across 14 categories, I identified 31 marks implying certification. Only five were registered as certification trade marks in New Zealand. The remainder included marks registered as standard trade marks and marks without New Zealand registration.
This does not establish that those other schemes lack meaningful standards or independent assessment. Some overseas marks, for example, were registered in their home jurisdictions. The point is that suggesting certification and having registered certification trade mark status in New Zealand are different things.
That distinction is often difficult to identify from packaging. Shoppers and businesses may see a logo suggesting certification without knowing whether it falls within the certification trade mark framework. Similar-looking logos can therefore imply comparable assurance while carrying different legal safeguards.
For businesses investing in obtaining certification for their products, including scheme fees, audits and packaging changes, this matters. The commercial return depends partly on whether buyers recognise the scheme’s credibility. When competing claims look equivalent despite different levels of scrutiny, the value of that investment risks being diluted.
Registration alone also provides an incomplete picture. A separate analysis of 87 sets of certification scheme rules found gaps in practical guidance, fee transparency and owners’ responsibilities.
Suppliers should therefore check both a scheme’s registration status and how it operates: what it certifies, how compliance is monitored, participation costs and consequences for breaches. Retailers can ask similar questions when assessing supplier claims or developing private-label products. Scheme operators should make these details accessible and help licensees communicate the status of their marks clearly on packaging.
Certification can create real value for the grocery sector. Protecting that value requires clarity about a mark’s legal status, supported by credible standards and active oversight.
Learn more from Dr Bram Van Wiele, University of Auckland Business School, on certifications and trade marks in New Zealand here
Explore the latest issue here
