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
Who was worse: The Attorney or the Legal Practice Council?
Roll of attorneys In a matter recently heard before the Western Cape High Court, erstwhile attorney Gerrit Smit Van Wyk [...]
Shareholders stuck between a rock and a hard place
Companies Act 71 of 2008 Brief overview of Section 163 Introduction There are instances where the Companies Act 71 of [...]
Who appoints the substitute BRP? A look into the meaning of Section 139(3) of the Companies Act
Section 139(3) of the Companies Act Who has the power to appoint a business rescue practitioner's replacement, in circumstances where [...]
The metaverse and data privacy: Will regulation keep up?
What is the metaverse? On 28 October 2021, Facebook Inc.'s chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg announced the rebranding of his [...]
Relief from oppressive or prejudicial conduct in terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008
Section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 In any corporate environment, the authority of the board of directors, [...]
Domestic Violence: New definitions you should know
by Dakalo Singo, Director and Head of Pro Bono Practice Domestic Violence Amendment Bill Introduction The annual "16 Days of [...]

