Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Is it game set and match Federer?
Roger Federer, holder of eight Wimbledon men’s singles titles and currently ranked no. 2 in the world in men’s tennis singles, is one of the greatest tennis players of all time. With an estimated net worth of US$450 million he has at the age of thirty six entered a US$300 million contract with Japanese casual wear, designer, manufacturer and clothing retailer Uniqlo, currently valid until he turns forty seven.

This impressive deal ends Federer’s twenty-year contract with Nike, in terms of, which he is said to have earned US$10 million annually. A trade mark issue has, however, transpired concerning Roger Federer’s initials, which have been used extensively on Nike’s range of branded gear that many may be familiar with:

It is reported that the Nike group are the registered owners of this trade mark in various territories around the world in class 25, the main class for clothing, footwear and headgear. This means that if any other unauthorised party, in this case Uniqlo, were to use RF on its clothing and related gear, Nike would be in a position to stop them from doing so since they own the registered trade mark, and any unauthorised use would be trade mark infringement. This is despite the fact that RF are Federer’s initials.
The question concerning ownership and use of personal names is not new. The South African Trade Marks Act provides that it is defence to use one’s personal name provided that this use is ‘consistent with fair practice’, while in the EU it is a defence to use one’s personal name if is ‘in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters’.
Federer has requested Nike to transfer the trade mark to himself, because the mark comprises his initials, which would surely be “in accordance with honest practice”. It turns out, however, that the issue is not quite as simple as the question concerns the terms of the commercial contract entered between Federer and Nike and where the goodwill in the trade marks and intellectual property resides now that it has terminated. It is also not clear whether the own name defence applies to initials.
The match between Kevin Anderson and Federer had all tennis fans and South African supporters glued to their seats, and it will be interesting to see how this trade mark issue transpires.
In last month’s Legal Brief https://werksmans.com/legal-briefs-view/trade-marks-sports-creation-superstars/ some of the world’s greatest footballers named highlight the sheer magnitude of superstar status and the brand value associated therewith. Italian club Juventus has since agreed a hefty £105 million (approximately US$140 million) transfer fee for Cristiano Ronaldo’s move from Real Madrid and with reported record sales of over 520 000 Juventus shirts in 24 hours at an approximate cost of US$90 per shirt, this fee will be recouped in no time.
BEST PRACTICE
Trade mark registrations for logos, names (even nick names) and new brands provide statutory protection against unauthorised use and can be licensed for royalties. Trade marks are both territory and class specific and are perpetual on payment of renewal fees, usually every ten years.
While sportsmen, popstars, movie stars and indeed any public figure should take the necessary steps to ensure that trade marks be filed extensively and protect all intellectual property at the outset, the principle applies to all contracts commercialising intellectual property.
Latest News
Code Red to Code Regulated: South Africa’s Data, AI and Cybersecurity Shift in 2025, and What’s to Come in 2026?
by Armand Swart, Director, Hlonelwa Lutuli, Associate and Hanán Jeppie, Candidate Attorney South Africa's data protection, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence [...]
The Gauteng school placements crisis (2026) – Why children are still waiting and what the law says
By Naledi Motsiri - Director and Nothando Nyoni - Associate As the 2026 school year begins, many parents in Gauteng [...]
The Introduction of a Dedicated Insolvency Court in Pretoria
by Eric Levenstein - Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue and Amy Mackechnie - Senior Associate Following the [...]
Regulatory Snapshot: Financial Services and AML
by Hilah Laskov, Director In this article, we lay out the main regulatory and legal developments in 2025 that [...]
The Need to Plead Properly – Patel vs South African Securitisation Programme (RF) LTD & Others (790/2024) [2025] SASCA 186
by Jennifer Smit, Director On 8 December 2025, the SCA handed down a decision in the above matter which [...]
The union doth protest too much: NUMSA v BMW and the limits of court intervention in disciplinary proceedings
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The Labour Court’s judgment in NUMSA on behalf of Members v BMW (SA) (Pty) Ltd [...]
