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
Section 11 consent: Can the regulator breathe life into a void transaction?
by Kathleen Louw, Director 1. Section 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") [...]
Resign First, Complain Later? The LAC Draws the Line on Constructive Dismissal
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director Constructive dismissal is not an escape route for employees who are dissatisfied with their working environment, [...]
Kusile Pollution: SCA Orders Eskom and Regulators to Act
by Jones Antunes, Director (Reviewer), and Tashlin Ramanundh, Candidate Attorney Environmental authorisations impose strict obligations which continue throughout the life [...]
AI and gambling, the regulatory gap is growing
by Wendy Rosenberg, Director and Head of Digital Media & Electronic Communications, and Tebogo Sibidla, Director Artificial intelligence (AI) is [...]
Blocking growth? Why the NCC’s Draft Opt-Out Registry Guidelines need revisiting | You were only given 15 days to comment – what are you doing?
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory, and Boitumelo Khwene, Candidate Attorney No one defends the spam caller. According [...]
Voting rights not afforded to post-commencement creditors
by Dr. Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue, Brandon Starr, Senior Associate, and Clio Patricios, Candidate [...]

