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
Enforceability of medical testing as a clause in an employment contract
Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd v Weideman (JA104/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 258 (4 July 2017) ISSUE Whether an employer can [...]
Are trade mark clearance searches necessary?
INTRODUCTION We are asked by clients on regular occasions whether there is a need to conduct searches of the [...]
Higher qualifications not an automatic reason validating differential pay between employees
ISSUE Whether the employer had unfairly discriminated against farm‑supervisors by grading and paying them less than farm‑foremen who performed [...]
Dismissal for poor work performance: the importance of setting realistic targets and providing assistance in the achievement of such targets
ISSUE(S) The importance of setting realistic targets for employees and providing the employees with resources to reach such targets. [...]
IP transactions and exchange control
In March 2017 the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) proposed certain new exemptions relating to the sale and licensing of [...]
Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Commission announces investigations of trusts used in B-BBEE ownership structures
INTRODUCTION On 7 August 2017, the B-BBEE Commission announced that it had initiated 17 investigations for possible contraventions of [...]

