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
Labour Court Upholds Enforceability of Restraint of Trade Agreements
and Hannah Fowler, Candidate Attorney In the recent case of SMD Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Tavares and Another ([2024] ZALCJHB [...]
Remedies in respect of decisions made under the MPRDA: there are no quick fixes
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) When it comes to appealing against or reviewing administrative decisions under the [...]
Breaking News as the Minister of Employment and Labour publishes much anticipated Sectoral Targets and accompanying Regulations
by Anastasia Vatalidis - Director, Kerry Fredericks - Director and Gracie Sargood - Candidate Attorney The Employment Equity Amendment Act [...]
A Guide to The Johannesburg High Court – dedicated Insolvency Court Project
Published On: April 11th, 2025 by Eric Levenstein, Director and Head of Business Rescue & Insolvency, Amy Mackechnie, Senior Associate [...]
Whether non-parties to a collective agreement can refer a dispute about the interpretation and application of the collective agreement?
and Pumelela Mniki, Candidate Attorney The issue of whether non-parties to a collective agreement can declare a dispute about its [...]
Note On The Final Nedlac Report On The Labour Law Reform Process
and Anna Tchalov, Candidate Attorney and Gracie Sargood, Candidate Attorney Following negotiations between organised business, organised labour and government, the [...]