Could your hot water cylinder be the key to cheaper household energy and a smaller carbon footprint? Electric Kiwi’s Huia Burt tells Bernard Hickey why the way you use hot water matters more than you might think.
In the midst of our cost of living crisis, the call for innovative energy solutions has never been more urgent. As households grapple with rising expenses, could a hidden hero be lurking in your homes, ready to help save you money and reduce your carbon footprint? Huia Burt, co-founder and CEO of Electric Kiwi, believes that the average hot water cylinder might just be that hero. She joins Bernard Hickey on this week’s episode of When the Facts Change to explain how simple changes to our energy use could set an example of how New Zealand’s energy landscape could be turned on its head.
Electric Kiwi is one of a number of power companies that have created initiatives offering customers a period of free energy use each day, encouraging them to shift their consumption to off-peak times. Launched nearly a decade ago, Electric Kiwi’s Hour of Power leverages the prevalence of smart meters in Aoteroa – approximately 80% of households now have one.
One of the easiest ways consumers can cut costs involves taking advantage of their hot water cylinders, which Burt describes as “effectively a battery”. By heating water during off-peak times, households can enjoy the benefits of lower energy costs while contributing to a greener grid. “Ninety-nine percent of people will not notice any difference,” she says.
By creating habits around energy use, like running dishwashers and washing machines during designated hours, consumers can significantly cut their energy costs. This shift in consumption patterns also contributes to a reduction in reliance on non-renewable energy sources, making it a win-win for bank balance and the environment.
Getting more customers to embrace load shifting their power use is a simple approach that could unlock significant savings for households across the country. “What we’re trying to encourage is behavioural change,” Burt says, likening it to the adoption of reusable bags at supermarkets.
Yet, with all this potential for change, Burt acknowledges the broader challenges facing New Zealand’s electricity market. Despite technological advancements, innovation has been stunted. “When you have really strong competition, you do bring in that incentive… that impetus for innovation hasn’t really been there in the New Zealand electricity sector because of the lack of competition.”
She’s talking about an environment where larger energy providers are content with their market share and the profits that come with it, leaving smaller retailers to spearhead innovative offerings. Huia is clear on the need for a more competitive landscape, one that encourages continuous improvement in customer offerings.
More Reading
So what does the future hold for the energy market in Aotearoa? Huia paints an optimistic picture. “The technology is available, it’s the scale that’s missing. It’s the incentive to actually move into those areas.” Burt believes the sector needs to overcome its reticence to give customers a seat at the table, saying “consumers are asking us for this. What consumers want is to reduce their costs and emissions, and as a retailer it’s our job to find every single way that they can do that.”
However, the question remains: Why would a capitalist company want to sell less product at a lower price? Huia has a refreshing perspective. “We know that the size of this market is going to expand exponentially with the right incentives.” With the right strategies in place, she believes companies can thrive while fostering sustainability, challenging the traditional narrative of endless consumption.
The goal is clear, to empower consumers by giving them more control over their energy usage and costs.
Click here for more episodes Bernard Hickey’s economics podcast When the Facts Change
Keep going!
Kashif Shuja of Sportify took on Spotify, and Barilla Dumpling battled pasta giant Barilla (Photos: Supplied/Getty Images; design The Spinoff)
Kashif Shuja of Sportify took on Spotify, and Barilla Dumpling battled pasta giant Barilla (Photos: Supplied/Getty Images; design The Spinoff)
An Auckland eatery and Taupō sports retailer are two recent winners in trademark battles against huge overseas corporations.
If you walked into a dumpling house named Barilla, would you expect to be served up a bowl of pasta? How about asking for your favourite album at a sports retailer named Sportify? Names can throw us off if an association already exists in our mind, but if there’s a clear enough distinction between two businesses, how at risk are we of being deceived?
In March, a Feilding fish and chip shop named Popeyes Takeaway changed its name after being sent a cease and desist letter from US fried chicken slinger Popeyes. The small business had never thought to register its name, while Popeyes Louisiana has owned trademarks in New Zealand since 1976, despite not opening its first New Zealand outlet until this year. Now named North Street Takeaways, the fish and chip shop owners said it was easier to bow down to the bigger restaurateur than potentially put themselves out of business by forking out for legal costs.
Being the bigger guy typically means you’re better resourced, but it doesn’t necessarily make you a winner. The Spinoff examines two recent cases from the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (NZIPO), which saw smaller local businesses triumph over bigger corporations.
Image: The Spinoff
Barilla v Barilla
One’s the largest and highest-earning pasta company in the world; the other, a damn good spot for dumplings on Auckland’s Dominion Road. You probably know Barilla for the blue boxes that have sat on our supermarket shelves since 2003, carrying a variety of dried pastas. Barilla Dumpling, on the other hand, has sold Chinese cuisine on one of Auckland’s most famous food streets for decades, and in recent years has expanded, opening two other branches in the supercity.
But when Barilla Dumpling applied to trademark its name, the Italian pasta makers objected. The saga began in August 2016, when Barilla Dumpling’s Shao Chenghu, Shao Jun and Shao Li applied to register Barilla Dumpling as a trademark in “Asian-style restaurant services”.
The NZIPO did not formally approve the application until early 2018, after which it was publicly advertised for three months to allow third parties to object. Italy’s Barilla opposed it in that period, arguing the registration conflicted with its own trademarks registered in New Zealand.
Under New Zealand law, if a mark has been registered but not used in the three years following, a third party is allowed to apply to remove it from the register, says trademark lawyer Narly Kalupahana, who worked on the Barilla case in its early years. He says that when a business applies to register a trademark, it is effectively applying for a government certificate to show it’s the owner of the name or logo – in this case, the words “Barilla Dumpling”.
One of the two Barilla Dumpling restaurants on Auckland’s Dominion Road.
Barilla (the pasta one) relied on four of its various trademark registrations to oppose Barilla Dumpling’s filing, but between 2016 and 2018, three of those were revoked for not being used, following applications from the dumpling house. One included “Casa Barilla”, a trademark for restaurant and catering services.
Kalupahana says narrowing down the scope of the registration was an effective step in strengthening Barilla Dumpling’s position. However, as Barilla’s Casa Barilla mark for restaurant and catering services was only registered in December 2015, and Barilla Dumpling’s application came before the three-year grace period was up, it needed to be considered under “special circumstances”. This position was made stronger when Barilla failed to challenge the application for revocation.
Barilla argued that although it had not used the mark for restaurant and catering services, there was no evidence that the company hadn’t consciously decided not to expand into that area. The company has operated pop-up “Casa Barilla” cafes and cooking schools in various locations around the world. In New Zealand, Barilla pointed to masterclasses held at the Auckland Seafood School and stalls at the Auckland Food Show and Auckland Gluten Free Food and Allergy Show between 2008 and 2015, but the judgment ruled that the brand had not built a reputation in New Zealand for these demonstrations, especially as these were sponsored events, and the company does not typically offer full-time cooking classes in Aotearoa.
As third party evidence, Barilla presented Italian food importer Antonio Cacace, owner of Wellington’s La Bella Italia. When Cacace gave evidence in June 2022, he spoke about growing up as a young child in Italy familiar with the Barilla brand as an institution, and said that he takes “every opportunity to educate and to make people aware of the Barilla brand”.
The NZIPO found that Cacace’s evidence did not add weight to Barilla’s case, as despite the brand being a “well-established household name” in Italy, Cacace has still had to educate New Zealanders on Barilla, suggesting the brand did not already have significant awareness in Aotearoa.
Barilla is the world’s biggest pasta maker.
Assistant commissioner of trademarks Virginia Nichols ruled she found no evidence of confusion between Barilla Dumpling and Casa Barilla, nor evidence that Barilla has “established any valuable goodwill in the mark Casa Barilla in connection with the services of providing food and drink”.
“The goodwill associated with those marks is strongly associated with Italian food,” Nicols wrote. “It is not clear that would be affected by an Asian-style restaurant.”
Despite the opposition’s application being lodged in April 2018, the case didn’t reach a hearing until April 2024, with the decision released in August. This delay is unusually long, Kalupahana says, but also reflective of the limited resources the NZIPO is working with. “In New Zealand, we don’t have a lot of hearing offices, [there’s] about three or four at the moment,” Kalupahana says. Registering a trademark is a “slow process” and there are a “tonne” of unheard NZIPO cases waiting their turn, Kalupahana says.
He adds that some companies are more trigger happy with trademark applications than others – such as beverage giant Monster Energy, whom Kalupahana says tends to have three or four cases going at any one time.
“It doesn’t actually stop people from using a trademark, it just ties up resources. So if you’ve got Monster fighting [you], you’re stumbling up to thousands in legal fees,” he says. “It’s really difficult to be the little guy and keep up with the volume of visits you might need to successfully defend your case.” While Barilla doesn’t necessarily fall into this category, there are “bully” corporations who tend to appeal against any mark that may be too close to theirs, says Kalupahana.
The NZIPO ruling ordered Barilla to pay Barilla Dumpling $3,379 in costs. Barilla Dumpling did not respond to a request for comment from The Spinoff.
Sportify v Spotify
Meanwhile, in Taupō, another family-owned business found itself caught in a years-long trademark dispute with a different overseas giant. Sporting goods retailer Sportify has had an online and physical presence since 2013, originally as Sportif. But after adding a “y” to the end of its name in 2021, music streaming giant Spotify accused the company of breaching its trademark.
Sportify’s owner, former professional squash player Kashif Shuja, hasn’t been able to put money into growing his business while his NZIPO case has dragged on. His business has been operating as Sports Café since 2023 due to Spotify’s application, but now that he’s won the case, Shuja plans to switch the name back to Sportify.
After applying to trademark Sportify as a sports retailer, Shuja says he was contacted by Spotify’s Wellington-based lawyers, “to ask, very nicely, if we could take our website down and let go of our trademark”. When Shuja refused, the lawyers offered to “buy [him] out”, he says. When he declined, Spotify took the issue to the NZIPO. “We did wonder why they were working so hard to shut us down.”
Kashif Shuja’s store Sportify is on Tāupo’s Horomātangi Street
The name change was partly inspired by Spotify’s recommendations technology, which generates suggested songs and playlists for users based on their data, says Shuja. His vision for Sportify was to create a brand that could suggest relevant sports to customers based on their skills, age, physique and interests, though development of this technology has taken a back seat while Shuja has tried to keep business spending down.
Despite being famously music-focused, Spotify argued it had created a reputation in sporting goods and services by having large brands (Nike, the All Blacks, Sky Sports and Spark Sports, for example) control their own sponsored playlists, and having sporting figures such as Dan Carter promote Spotify. Assistant commissioner of trademarks Ruvini Rendle ruled this was not sufficient evidence to prove consumers associated sports with Spotify, “in the way that a general news publisher is unlikely to acquire a reputation in relation to goods or services which are the subject matter of articles published”.
Evidence Spotify used to argue the similarity between its and Sportify’s marks included a screenshot of a Google search for Sportify, which showed the search result asking“did you mean Spotify?”. Rendle ruled this was insufficient evidence, as the search suggestion was probably more a reflection of Spotify’s popularity.
The NZIPO ruled in June 2024 that Spotify’s application was unsuccessful, saying that as Sportify was operating as a sporting goods service, consumers were unlikely to confuse the business with Spotify. The decision acknowledged a similarity between the names, but “this is on the low end of the scale” and “deception and confusion is unlikely to occur”.
Shuja says he stopped all advertising and shut down his website to cut costs while his application was being considered, and is now looking forward to being able to grow his business again. “For small New Zealand businesses in any industry, if people feel bullied or that their rights have been reduced, I think this is a lesson for all of us to stand our ground if we are right,” he says.
“We had to decide if we were willing to take the risk of losing,” Shuja says. “It took three years of deliberation and delays, then we finally got the result. I maybe had tears in my eyes.”
‘Become a member to help us deliver news and features that matter most to Aotearoa.’
