When a brand tests the waters of cultural heritage

In recent years, the world of intellectual property has increasingly had to deal with a sensitive issue: the commercial use of indigenous cultural elements. The case of HOKA, a well-known international sports footwear brand, brings into focus the fragile balance between branding strategies and respect for the cultural identities of the original communities.

Founded in France and now owned by the US-based Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the company chose a word from the Māori language for its name: Hoka, short for Hoka One One, which may be translated as “fly above the earth”. Not surprisingly, the logo depicts a bird in flight and the company slogan reads: “Fly Human Fly”.

Initially, no secret was made of the Māori origin of the name. But since 2012, with the transition to US ownership, all cultural references have disappeared from the site and promotional materials. A choice that provoked a reaction from the Māori community.

According to the legal representatives of some iwi (tribes), the use of the term without consultation or recognition violates the principles of tikanga, the Māori customary law governing the use of language, symbols, and traditions. Māori cultural norms stipulate that, before using sacred words or references for commercial purposes, consent must be sought and their origin and meaning publicly acknowledged.

And this is not an isolated case. In addition to Hoka, the company uses other Māori names such as Arahi (“to drive”) and Hopara (“to explore”) to identify lines of shoe, without any indication of the origin or meaning of these terms.

The phenomenon is part of a broader trend: in recent years, several companies and public figures have been accused of cultural appropriation for using Māori symbols or words. From Fernando Alonso’s clothing, to tattoos and digital filters, to Air New Zealand’s application to register the Māori greeting “Kia Ora” as a trademark. Even celebrities such as Mike Tyson – who tattooed the moko, a Māori ritual symbol, on his face – or fashion designer Jean-Paul Gaultier, who used it on non-indigenous models, ended up at the centre of the debate.

In intellectual property law, a trademark is valued for its originality and distinctiveness. However, indigenous legal systems – often uncodified and based on collective concepts – remain on the margins of the legal framework. In New Zealand, the Trade Marks Act envisages consultation with the Māori Trade Marks Advisory Committee to prevent the registration of trade marks that are offensive to Māori culture. But this constraint only applies to locally registered applications, and not to brands used on a global scale.

The case thus highlights a regulatory gap and  a real risk to corporate reputation: ignoring the cultural origin of a brand can damage brand perception and, in the long run, jeopardise commercial and institutional relations. Some countries, such as Canada and Australia, are exploring models of shared management of cultural heritage, based on dialogue and a fair return for the communities involved.

The HOKA case reminds us that a trademark is not just a name or a logo: it can encapsulate the identity, history and symbols deeply rooted in the culture of a people.

In an era when companies operate on a global scale, choosing symbols or words related to cultural traditions requires care and awareness: ignoring their value may disrespect the communities they come from and, consequently, damage the company’s image.

The world of trademarks is changing. Companies that choose to listen to, recognise and build alliances with the communities from which they draw inspiration not only avoid the risk of controversy, but demonstrate their ability to turn respect into value. Because today more than ever, authenticity and responsibility are the aspects that distinguish an authentic trademark from one that is merely registered.