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 Employment Equity Amendment Bill, 2018
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Yusha Davidson, Candidate Attorney The Employment Equity Amendment Bill, 2018 ("Bill") amends specific provisions [...]
Five reasons to register trade marks beyond your home territory
In our September 2017 edition of Legal Werks, the top ten reasons to register trade marks were identified notably the [...]
Director liability – OHSA/NEMA
This memo is intended to provide high level guidance on director liability under the National Environmental Management Act 107 of [...]
Reporting obligations of directors in terms of the Companies Act, No. 71 of 2008 – reckless trading and personal liability
Directors are obligated to report financial distress – failure to do so might result in personal liability. The Companies Act [...]
Kenya: SONY is not well-known
By Janine Hollesen and Donvay Wegierski, Directors In Sony Corporation vs Sony Holdings Limited the Kenyan High court dismissed the [...]
South Africa: reliance on trade marks in company name objections
By Janine Hollesen and Donvay Wegierski, Directors A further reason to register trade marks is that they can be relied [...]

