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
Directors’ liability and the competition commission’s corporate leniency policy for cartel contraventions
The Corporate Leniency Policy ("CLP") was published by the Competition Commission in 2004 and remains the principal tool employed by [...]
Trade Marks: USA and Consent Agreements
Anyone who has a commercial presence in the USA or intends entering the US market will know that the United [...]
Employee’s right to privacy
In National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and other v Rafee NO and others (2017) JOL 37705 (LC), the [...]
Is a pre-suspension hearings necessary for a precautionary suspension?
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Chelsea Roux, Candidate Attorney ISSUE Whether there is a requirement for a pre-suspension hearing [...]
How long is too long? Suspension of an employee pending a disciplinary process
By Bradley Workman-Davies, Director and Mishkah Abdool Sattar, Candidate Attorney Very often, an employee is suspended while an investigation is [...]
National minimum wage amendment bill, 2019
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Unathi Jukuda, Candidate Attorney On 22 February 2019 the Portfolio Committee on Labour published [...]
