Legal updates and opinions
News / News
South Africa: primark cancelled due to non-use
By Janine Hollesen, Director
Truworths brought a cancellation application against Primark Holdings’ registration for PRIMARK on the basis that the mark had not been used. A mark can be removed from the register, on application by a third party, if it has not been used for 5 years. These applications are generally heard by the courts with this case ending up at the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”).
Primark, an overseas discount fast-fashion clothing retailer with no presence in South Africa, applied in 1976 for the registration of PRIMARK in class 25 in respect of “clothing; boots, shoes and slippers included in this class”.
Primark argued that as its mark was well-known it was saved from removal. For a mark to be a well-known mark it is not necessary to be well-known among the whole population of South Africa, it merely has to be well-known to those interested in the goods or services to which the mark relates.
The court found that the evidence provided by Primark was inadequate to establish the required degree of knowledge of the mark – at most it indicated that possibly there was some interest in and knowledge of PRIMARK among those who paid close attention to such matters at the relevant time, but it did not go beyond that. The SCA found that Primark had not shown that the mark was well-known. Although the PRIMARK mark could be regarded as well-known elsewhere, particularly in the UK, it had to show that it was well-known in South Africa amongst the relevant portion of the public.
The court also considered whether Primark’s evidence showed use in good faith (or bona fide or genuine use) with reference to an item for sale on eBay and reference to the mark on the UK website, ASOS, and found that such use did not constitute bona fide use to save it from cancellation.
It is therefore important for trade mark proprietors to make use of their trade marks to ensure that they are not removed from the register on the basis of non-use. It is recommended that proof of use is documented and retained and which can be easily retrieved to be relied upon in the event of cancellation proceedings.
A further case which illustrates the importance of making genuine use of a mark to avoid cancellation is the fact that the European Intellectual Property Office has recently ruled that McDonald’s registrations for BIG MAC should be removed from the register which resulted from an application for non-use by the Irish based restaurant chain, being the owner of the SUPER MAC’S trade mark. As McDonald’s can appeal the ruling it would be interesting to see the eventual outcome – but it still illustrates the importance of genuine use of trade marks.
Latest News
Technology & AI – in the workplace and beyond
by Preeta Bhagattjee, Director and Head of Technology & Innovation & Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The rapid integration and adoption [...]
Debt Review – A lifeline for over-indebted consumers
by Naledi Motsiri- Director and Nothando Nyoni - Candidate Attorney As a result of slow economic growth, high interest [...]
Claims for Non-payment in terms of Section 73A of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act – An overview of recent cases
by Dakalo Singo, Director and Head of Pro Bono In 2019, the jurisdiction of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation [...]
Department of Employment and Labour Update: What to expect in relation to the implementation of the Employment Equity sector targets
On 17 February 2025, the Department of Employment and Labour ("DoEL"), held a virtual meeting where various stakeholders and industry players met [...]
Relief for cystic fibrosis patients? The Competition Commission Closes Investigation into Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Reviewed by Rudolph Raath, Director "… poverty alleviation, the provision of high-quality education, the best health enhancing facilities or necessities, and [...]
Back to the Future: What data protection developments were there in 2024, and what lessons should SA businesses take into 2025 and beyond?
2024 was a big year for data protection in South Africa. The Information Regulator issued various enforcement notices and published [...]