Legal updates and opinions
News / News
MESSI is a trade mark
By Janine Hollesen and Donvay Wegierski, Directors
In April, the EU court ruled that the degree of similarity between the marks MASSI and MESSI is not sufficiently high to accept that the relevant public may believe that the goods come from the same source. It went further saying that a significant portion of the public would in fact associate the term MESSI with the famous footballer and will therefore perceive MASSI as being conceptually different.
The EU trade mark owner of MASSI for clothing, shoes, bicycle helmets, protective clothing and gloves had previously opposed Barcelona and Argentinian football player Messi’s application for MESSI due to their visual and phonetic similarity in 2013 which opposition was upheld in the first round. The appeal court overturned the ruling allowing Messi’s marks to be registered. With the FIFA 2018 WORLD CUP underway – with a rather dubious start for Messi – this successful appeal favouring Messi is no doubt welcomed.
If you would like to learn more about Intellectual Property please visit our practice area page.
Latest News
Employment in South Africa – a relationship built on trust
The employment relationship between an employer and its employees is heavily regulated in South African law and there are [...]
Testing the reliability of breathalyser tests
and Nombulelo Bashe, Candidate Attorney Whilst employers regularly rely on the convenience and accessibility of a breathalyser test to determine [...]
Salary made up of commission: What rules apply?
Although South African labour law has a lot to say about minimum terms and conditions of employment, and pieces [...]
Sustainable housing: Navigating the legal landscape for a green and resilient future
One of the first principles recognised in the Paris Agreement[1] is the importance of "sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns [...]
Powers of the Information Regulator and how the Department of Justice could have avoided a R5 million fine
There has been great anxiety amongst organisations since the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA) came [...]
The extent of an arbitrator’s jurisdiction
In the recent decision of Dis-Chem Pharmacies Limited v Dainfern Square (Pty) Ltd & Others[1] the Supreme Court of [...]