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
Filling the gaps: examining the procedure to amend a Mining Right under the Mineral and Petroleum, Resources Development Act 28 of 2002.
A significant portion of the transactions that land on the desks of commercial mining attorneys in the Republic of South [...]
Who owns the tailings generated from previous mining activities?
and Mmatshepo Papo, Candidate Attorney In the decision of Mpilo and Zen Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Centurion Mining Company (Pty) [...]
Automatic transfers of employment – the strength of Section 197
Through the introduction of section 197 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA) the idea was introduced into South [...]
Foreign employers, foreign employees and remote workers and South African labour laws – do they always apply?
and Kelly Sease, Candidate Attorney The Labour Relations Act ("LRA") amongst other important functions, regulates the rights of employees whose [...]
Previous renewal does not automatically constitute an expectation of re-renewal
and Tasreeq Ferreira, Candidate Attorney Issue Whether the non-renewal of an employee's fixed term contract ("FTC")constituted an unfair dismissal as [...]
Enforcement notice issued to Dis-Chem due to contravention of POPIA
and Chiara Ferri, Candidate Attorney The importance of compliance has once again been highlighted as the Information Regulator issued an [...]