Legal updates and opinions
News / News
BANKSY AND GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
By Janine Hollesen, Director
We have written about the risks of not using a trade mark which could lead to the mark being removed from the register by a third party because of such non-use.
The importance of use is once again illustrated by the trade mark dispute in which the elusive and legendary street artist, BANKSY, has found himself.
It seems that a greeting cards company is alleging that as the BANKSY trade mark is not being used for merchandise under the various trade mark categories, the trade mark registrations should be removed from the register.
The reality is that the BANKSY mark has not been used for such products which has led to an ingenious strategy to protect the trade mark rights in the BANKSY mark.
To deal with the threat, BANKSY firstly created a store in London under the name GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT which will not open its doors but in which merchandise is displayed. This has been followed by an online store at www.grossdomesticproduct.com
The online store has an interesting character in that an online shopper will not be guaranteed the purchase of the item selected but will have to apply for the goods which are placed in the basket. Once a product is selected the following notice is shown on check-out:
- We apologise in advance for what may prove to be a disappointing retail experience.
- Purchases are limited to one item per person, register your interest below.
Please note:
There is no rush – sales are not allocated on a first come first served basis, but selected at random once vetted through the customer question. Our system automatically removes orders from duplicate IP addresses. Please refrain from submitting multiple orders.
Successful applicants will be notified by email within 2 weeks of submission, and sent a link to a private checkout to complete their online purchase. Incomplete transactions will be offered to other shoppers.
Further down on the same page the following notice appears which then requires the shopper to answer the question: Why does art matter?
Prove that you’re not a robot (and a half decent human being) by answering the following question in no more than 50 words:
Some of the items which are available to purchase by way of application are copied below:
According to press reports, BANKSY is reportedly creating a number of different items to satisfy the various trade mark categories to ensure that the mark is in use.
Taking into account, the extreme secrecy surrounding his identity there is no wonder that Banksy has taken such steps as any litigation might force out his identity, which has created the mysteriousness around the artist which makes his artwork certainly even more desirable.
This is not the usual run of the mill case of non-use and is a bit more interesting than most, but illustrates once again the importance of using a trade mark to prevent an attack on the basis of non-use.
Latest News
When is an instruction to work overtime unlawful and unenforceable?
and Nombulelo Bashe, Candidate Attorney AMCU obo Mkhonto v CCMA and Others (JR 2266/17) [2023] ZALCJHB (13 February 2023) Insubordination [...]
Conciliations and the importance of maintaining impartiality
and Tasreeq Ferreira, Candidate Attorney Issue Whether comments made by a commissioner in conciliation proceedings could give rise to a [...]
When reinstatement is not permissible
and Kelly Sease, Candidate Attorney In terms of section 193(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (as amended) [...]
Does section 11 (1) of the MPRDA apply to an indirect change in control?
and Mmatshepo Papo - Candidate Attorney In the recent decision of Vantage Goldfields SA (Pty) Ltd & Another v Arqomanzi [...]
Is a municipal by-law prohibiting transfer of property without a “SPLUMA Certificate” constitutional and valid?
In an unreported case[1] of the High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division, Middelburg ("Court"), a number of owners [...]
(Insurance) fraud unravels all: The SCA confirms that fraud can lead to the forfeiture of a partly valid and partly fraudulent claim when a policy says so
In Discovery Insure Limited v Masindi the SCA considered whether the entirety of an insurance claim should be forfeited [...]

