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
The test for merger specificity restated and endorsed
As part of the merger notification process, merging parties must disclose whether the merger will or even has caused job [...]
Half-baked challenge by employees dismissed for testing positive for cannabis at work
In a 2018 judgement by the Constitutional Court, the highest Court in the land effectively decriminalised the private use, cultivation [...]
Triumph for liquidators: Courts setting aside and declaring specious transactions void
by Tandiwe Matshebela, Director, Tebello Mosoeu, Associate, and Zoë Austen, Candidate Attorney Added to the liquidators' responsibility and duty to [...]
Considering the competition law implication of crypto currency and regulation one ought to say – Competition Commission start running!
The cryptocurrency sector is innovative and fast-moving. Cryptocurrency and crypt exchanges are attracting a lot of focus also as Crypto [...]
Too good to be true? What about your privacy?
It is common cause that the tech-bug has bitten us all (almost), and the evolution of the mobile application ("mobile [...]
Should there be limits on the extent to which personal information of a company’s shareholders are available to the public?
Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 ("Companies Act") provides that any person has the right to access [...]