Hawaii House Bill HR75

Hawaii 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/22
• Refer: 3/14/22
• Report Pass: 3/31/22
• Refer: 3/31/22

Caption

Requesting The Department Of Business, Economic Development, And Tourism To Conduct A Study On The "made In Hawaii" And "hawaii Made" Brands And Prepare A Plan To Encourage And Enforce The Use Of Those Brands.

Impact

If implemented, HR75 could significantly impact state laws surrounding the labeling and marketing of Hawaii-made products. The resolution arises from concerns regarding existing laws that protect the integrity of these labels; it aims to reinforce and potentially expand the existing regulatory framework established by Act 153 and Act 2. By standardizing the enforcement and criteria for these brands, the proposed measures could streamline processes for local manufacturers and safeguard the authenticity of Hawaiian products in the market.

Summary

House Resolution 75 (HR75) requests the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) to conduct a comprehensive study on the 'Made in Hawaii' and 'Hawaii Made' brands. The resolution emphasizes the need for effective utilization and enforcement of these brands, which are vital for promoting Hawaii’s local products on national and international markets. HR75 seeks to clarify the purpose and jurisdiction overlap between the two branding programs, addressing urgent issues such as trademark enforcement and the development of a cohesive branding strategy.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HR75 is largely positive, with many stakeholders, including local businesses and legislators, recognizing the potential benefits of a strong branding strategy. However, there are underlying concerns related to the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms and the administrative capacity of DBEDT. Advocates see this resolution as a proactive step to enhance Hawaii's economic landscape by building a recognizable and respected brand identity that can distinguish authentic products from imitations.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the current lack of statutory authority for DBEDT to enforce the 'Hawaii Made' trademark, which raises questions about the operational viability of branding efforts. Critics might argue that without effective enforcement tools, the resolution may not yield the desired outcomes. Furthermore, stakeholders may be concerned about the balance of jurisdictional powers between the DBEDT and the Department of Agriculture regarding the two brands, necessitating a clear separation of roles in responsibility for branding and enforcement.