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
SARS: Misrepresenting Misrepresentation
As every taxpayer knows, SARS has extremely wide powers under the various fiscal Acts to enforce and collect tax. [...]
Changes to the tax treatment of trust income awarded to foreign beneficiaries on the horizon
Currently, income that arises in a South African trust which is awarded to a foreign beneficiary during the same [...]
What exactly are the duties and responsibilities of the mining right holder in the retrenchment process in the mining industry?
In Association of Mineworkers & Construction Union v Buffalo Coal Dundee (pty) Ltd & another ("Buffalo Coal"), the Labour [...]
Section 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act
In terms of section 11(1) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("MPRDA") - "A prospecting [...]
The unrealised transformative potential of preferent community mining rights
and Siphamandla Dhlamini, Candidate Attorney The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act No. 28 of 2002 ("MPRDA") was enacted with [...]
Private companies and the new transparency provisions of the Companies Act
The Companies Act No 71 of 2008 ("Act") was amended on 1 April 2023 with the purpose of increasing corporate [...]