Legal updates and opinions
News / News
CANCELLED OR PARTIALLY CANCELLED TRADE MARKS – SOME TAKE AWAYS
By Donvay Wegierski, Director
The European Union’s Trade Mark office (EUIPO) has this year cancelled McDonald’s European Union Trade Mark registrations for BIG MAC and partially cancelled the trade mark MC in the EU as a consequence of non-use applications filed by Irish fast food chain Supermac.
The general principle is that if a trade mark is not used for a certain period, a trade mark can be vulnerable to cancellation for non-use. It is necessary for an interested third party to formally file cancellation proceedings on the grounds of non-use and it is then left up to the trade mark owner to shift that onus by providing evidence that the mark has in fact been used.
Brand owners are reminded of some of the implications:
- Enforcement: A cancelled or partially cancelled mark can still be used but enforcing it against others for
unauthorised use is confined to those goods and services for which the registration remains valid in the EU; - Evidence of use: Both rulings adverse to McDonalds provide some guidance to brand holders as to the evidence of
use required if defending a non-use cancellation action. The standard of proof is not excessively high but the
evidence provided should be strong:- Evidence of online use also requires visitor statistics;
- Evidence of use must show that the mark is used within the normal course of trade and genuine, that is
the mark is used in relation to the goods and services for which the mark is registered in that
territory in exchange for payment; - Advertising material, affidavits and brochures also require proof of actual sales such as invoices; and
- Although considered, affidavits signed by employees are less persuasive than those from an unrelated
source are.
- Distinctiveness: It is common to use a mark in combination with a range of products, which together, comprise a
family of marks. Brand owners should ensure that this mark is also used alone to retain the distinctiveness of
the mark; and - Review and refile: Brand owners refile trade marks that are not in use, albeit defensively, protecting those
trade marks that are vulnerable to cancellation for non-use.
Latest News
The ranking of creditors’ claims – now settled law!
By Nastascha Harduth, Director and Roxanne Webster, Senior Associate Since the introduction of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 ("the [...]
The use of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (“BBBEE”) criteria for government relief funds in the COVID-19 crisis
An analysis of the Solidarity/Afriforum case involving the Tourism Relief Fund for small micro and medium sized enterprises (“SMMES”) By [...]
The approach of the COMESA competition commission to distribution, exclusive dealing, supply and other vertical agreements
By Pieter Steyn, Director The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) covers 21 countries namely Burundi, the Comoros, [...]
Relaxing Cannabis
By Neil Kirby, Director The regulatory travels of cannabis continue. In terms of amendments published to the Schedules to the [...]
NUMSA v LUFIL: Does the Constitutional Court judgment accord with government’s policy of orderly bargaining at sectoral level?
By Lloyd Abraham, Director This article is a follow up to the article dealing with the case National Union of [...]
Update: Temporary Employer / Employee Relief Scheme (“TERS”): The May application process
by Jacques van Wyk, Director; Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate; and Thabisa Yantolo, Candidate Attorney On 28 May 2020 the [...]

