A Tale of Two Mites

In the world of yeast extract spreads, the suffix “-mite” carries serious weight. From Britain’s beloved Marmite to Australia’s national icon Vegemite, these savory spreads have inspired fierce brand loyalty and, occasionally, fierce legal battles. In 2016, one such battle reached the Federal Court of Australia, pitting two Australian-made yeast spreads against each other in a case that would reshape trademark law Down Under.

The combatants? Dick Smith’s OzEmite and Roger Ramsey’s AussieMite. The stakes? The right to use a name in Australia’s competitive yeast extract market. The outcome? A precedent-setting ruling that demonstrated just how seriously Australians take their savory spreads.

The Australian Yeast Extract Landscape

To understand this legal showdown, we need to appreciate the unique position of yeast extract in Australian culture. For decades, Vegemite has held near-monopoly status as Australia’s breakfast spread of choice, commanding the same cultural reverence that Marmite enjoys in Britain. But by the early 2000s, a problem emerged: Vegemite had been sold to American food giant Kraft (later Mondelez International), making this quintessentially Australian product foreign-owned.

This foreign ownership created an opportunity for patriotic alternatives. Enter two entrepreneurs with similar ideas and remarkably similar brand names.

The Contenders

Roger Ramsey, a former pilot, launched AussieMite in 2001, registering his trademark in May of that year. His product was the first gluten-free yeast spread with added Vitamin B12 and iron to hit Australian shelves since the 1960s. Positioned as proudly Australian-made and owned, AussieMite carved out a small but loyal customer base, eventually being run from Byron Bay by Ramsey’s daughter, Elise.

Dick Smith, the prominent Australian entrepreneur and vocal advocate for Australian-made products, registered the “OzEmite” trademark way back in October 1999. Smith had launched Dick Smith Foods with an explicit mission: create Australian alternatives to iconic brands that had been sold overseas. His range included everything from peanut butter to pasta sauce, all festooned with patriotic Australian branding.

There was just one problem with OzEmite: despite registering the trademark in 1999, Smith didn’t actually launch the product until 2012—a 13-year gap that would become the crux of the legal battle.

The Product: OzEmite

When OzEmite finally reached shelves in 2012, it offered something different in the yeast extract category: a gluten-free formulation. The ingredients list reads as a typical yeast extract composition—yeast and vegetable extracts, maize starch, maltodextrin, water, sugar, and a vitamin blend (Niacin, Thiamine, Riboflavin, and Folate). Smith marketed it as containing no artificial colors or flavors, positioning it as both a patriotic choice and a dietary option for those avoiding gluten.

Like its British cousin Marmite and Australian rival Vegemite, OzEmite is designed for spreading on toast, filling sandwiches, and incorporating into savory cooking. The taste profile follows the classic yeast extract formula: intensely savory, rich in umami, and decidedly divisive—you either love it or you don’t.

The Legal Battle Unfolds

By the time OzEmite launched in 2012, AussieMite had been on supermarket shelves for over a decade. The phonetic similarity between “OzEmite” and “AussieMite” immediately created friction. As Elise Ramsey later observed, “The names sound exactly the same. I’m a bit tired of explaining to potential suppliers that the two products are different.”

Roger Ramsey’s company took action, challenging OzEmite’s trademark registration on the grounds of “non-use.” Under Australian trademark law, if a trademark hasn’t been “genuinely used” for a continuous three-year period, it can be challenged and potentially removed from the register. Ramsey argued that the 13-year gap between Smith registering “OzEmite” and actually selling the product constituted non-use.

The Trade Marks Office Ruling

Initially, the challenge succeeded. The Australian Trade Marks Office (TMO) sided with Ramsey, ordering that Dick Smith’s “OzEmite” trademark be removed from the register. It appeared that AussieMite had won, and OzEmite would need to find a new name.

But Dick Smith wasn’t finished. He appealed to the Federal Court.

The Federal Court Appeal

On August 12, 2016, Justice Katzmann delivered a judgment that overturned the TMO’s decision—and in doing so, established an important precedent in trademark law.

The crucial question was: what constitutes “use” of a trademark?

Justice Katzmann found that Dick Smith’s extensive media promotion and marketing efforts for OzEmite in the years leading up to its 2012 launch were sufficient to be considered “genuine use” of the trademark, even before the product was physically available for purchase. The court ruled that promotional activities—not just sales—can satisfy the “use” requirement under Australian trademark law.

This was a significant broadening of trademark interpretation. Previously, many assumed that actual commercial sales were required. The OzEmite ruling established that building brand awareness through marketing, media appearances, and promotional activities could be enough to maintain a trademark registration.

Dick Smith was vindicated. As he stated: “It just seemed sensible to me that our Ozemite name, we came up with it first, and we should be allowed to keep it.”

The court ordered Roger Ramsey to pay Dick Smith’s legal costs—a bitter pill considering the case had already cost over half a million dollars. As Smith noted: “Whoever could believe that we’d end up with a court case that’s cost over half-a-million dollars, someone trying to stop us using our name, it’s just a nightmare.”

The Broader Implications

For Elise Ramsey, managing her father’s brand, the outcome was devastating. She accused Smith of hypocrisy: “Mr Smith’s actions shine a spotlight on his failure to walk the talk when it comes to championing the little guy. He invested heavily in actions designed to crush our small Australian business and funded lawyers to do so.”

It was an uncomfortable irony. Dick Smith, who had built his brand on supporting Australian small businesses against multinational corporations, was now the larger entity defeating a smaller Australian competitor in court.

The Fate of Both Brands

The Federal Court ruling allowed both OzEmite and AussieMite to legally coexist in the Australian market, despite their phonetic similarity. Both products continue to this day, though their journeys have been tumultuous.

Dick Smith Foods ultimately closed down in 2018, citing competition from German supermarket chain Aldi. However, OzEmite survived the company’s collapse and continues to be produced by Spring Gully Foods, maintaining its place as a gluten-free yeast extract option.

AussieMite also soldiers on, still operated by the Ramsey family from Byron Bay, still competing in the shadow of Vegemite’s dominance.

Interestingly, Vegemite itself returned to Australian ownership in 2017 when the Bega Group purchased it from Mondelez, somewhat diminishing the patriotic positioning that had been central to both OzEmite and AussieMite’s marketing.

The Global Mite Family

This Australian legal battle highlights the broader phenomenon of the global “-mite” family of yeast extracts. In Britain, Marmite remains the undisputed champion, produced since 1902 and now owned by Unilever. Like its Australian counterparts, Marmite inspires fierce loyalty and polarized opinions—hence its famous “Love it or hate it” slogan.

Beyond Marmite and Vegemite, the family includes: - Promite (Australia, owned by Mars) - Bovril (UK, technically a beef extract but occupying similar cultural space) - Cenovis (Switzerland) - Vitam-R (Germany)

Each of these products shares the core characteristic of yeast extract spreads: an intensely savory, umami-rich flavor profile that divides consumers into devoted fans and adamant opponents. They’re all high in B vitamins, used sparingly as spreads or cooking ingredients, and deeply embedded in their respective national food cultures.

The OzEmite vs AussieMite battle demonstrates that competition in this category isn’t just about taste or nutrition—it’s about national identity, legal strategy, and the right to claim a place in the hallowed “-mite” lineage.

Lessons for the Yeast Extract World

The 2016 Federal Court decision offers several important takeaways for the broader yeast extract industry:

1. Trademark protection extends beyond sales: The ruling established that marketing and promotional activities constitute genuine trademark use, even before a product launches. This gives brands more flexibility in their go-to-market strategies.

2. Name similarity is legally complex: Despite sounding virtually identical, OzEmite and AussieMite were allowed to coexist. This suggests that trademark law prioritizes first registration and genuine use over consumer confusion concerns—at least in this case.

3. Small market competition is fierce: Even in a category dominated by one major player (Vegemite), smaller competitors will fight vigorously for their market share and brand identity. The half-million-dollar legal battle over a tiny slice of the yeast extract market proves the point.

4. National identity matters: Both products leveraged Australian patriotism as their core marketing angle. This strategy can be powerful but also creates ethical complications when Australian businesses end up fighting each other rather than their multinational competitors.

A Mite-y Legacy

Today, visitors to Australian supermarkets will still find both OzEmite and AussieMite on the shelves, nestled alongside the dominant Vegemite and the imported British Marmite. The 2016 court case ensured that both brands could continue operating, even if it left a bitter taste for the Ramsey family.

For trademark lawyers, the case remains a valuable precedent about what constitutes trademark use. For yeast extract enthusiasts, it’s a reminder that the world of savory spreads is more competitive—and more legally complex—than most people realize.

And for those of us who love Marmite and its global cousins, it’s a fascinating chapter in the ongoing story of how these divisive, delicious spreads have become cultural icons worth fighting over—sometimes literally in court.

The next time you spread Marmite on your morning toast, spare a thought for the Australian “-mite” cousins who battled through the Federal Court just to keep their names. In the competitive world of yeast extracts, even the smallest jar can lead to the mightiest legal battles.