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
“All change is good”: potential implications of the proposed changes to taxation of income subject to withholding taxes awarded by South African trusts to foreign beneficiaries
and Benedict Ngobeni - Candidate Attorney Reviewed by Ernest Mazansky - Director, Werksmans Tax (Proprietary) Limited Currently, income arising in [...]
The changing landscape of the Companies Act, 2008: the Second Amendment Bill, 2023
In the wake of the Zondo Commission of Enquiry into State Capture's recommendation that certain provisions in the Companies [...]
A definite end to an infinite loop – the interpretation of section 153(4) of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008
It is evident from recent judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal (the "SCA") that various provisions [...]
A South African perspective on the role of Pro Bono lawyers
This article was first published in TYL, a publication of the American Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division As a [...]
Employment in South Africa – a relationship built on trust
The employment relationship between an employer and its employees is heavily regulated in South African law and there are [...]
Testing the reliability of breathalyser tests
and Nombulelo Bashe, Candidate Attorney Whilst employers regularly rely on the convenience and accessibility of a breathalyser test to determine [...]