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
Proposed amendments to The Financial Intelligence Centre Act, 2001
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director On 19 June 2020[1], the Minister of Finance published proposed amendments to Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the [...]
Guidance on outsourcing of compliance activities to third parties
by Tracy-Lee Janse van Rensburg, Director and Juliet Siwela, Candidate Attorney On 21 July 2020, the Financial Intelligence Centre ("FIC") published the [...]
Additional obligations for designated employers under The Employment Equity Act
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director A recent bill submitted to Parliament for consideration would seek to impose potentially stringent new quotas [...]
The effect of divorce and remarriage on a Will: SA and UK perspective
by Rachel Winterbach, Candidate Attorney reviewed by Doelie Lessing, Director This article compares the legal position that applies in the [...]
The deductibility of BBBEE expenditure – Binding Class Ruling 72
by Kyle Fyfe, Senior Associatereviewed by Ernest Mazansky, Head of Tax Practice SARS has recently issued Binding Class Ruling 72 [...]
SARS to get a new stick
by Kyle Fyfe, Senior Associatereviewed by Ernest Mazansky, Head of Tax Practice Section 34 of the draft Tax Administration Laws [...]
