Africa: Genuine use and reputation in South Africa
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Africa: Genuine use and reputation in South Africa

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal recently handed down two important judgments. One dealt with genuine use, the other with reputation.

In Westminster Tobacco Co v Philip Morris Products SA (March 16 2017), the issue was whether use made by Westminster (part of BAT) of its registered trade mark Parliament was genuine, and enough to save the registration from attack for non-use. The authorities tell us that use must not be "merely token, serving solely to preserve the rights conferred by the mark". They say that the intention behind the use must be "to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark".

The court accepted that BAT did put the mark Parliament in use with a view to protecting the registration. But there was more to it than that – the company was also keen to test a cigarette that would compete with low-cost brands that were eating into BAT's market share. Even though BAT's launch of the low-cost cigarette was not a great success and did not last very long, this did not stop the use from being genuine. These are probably the most important words in the judgment:

Genuineness is to be contrasted with use that is merely token, but the line is a fine one, because the use may be minimal… it may in part be prompted by the fear of removal from the register and be directed at protecting the proprietor's trade generally or preventing the mark from falling into the hands of a competitor.

Herbal Zone v Infitech Technologies (March 10 2017) was a passing off case involving an unregistered mark. In this case an aphrodisiac product that was manufactured by a company in Malaysia was imported into, and sold in, South Africa by a South African company. Who owned the reputation in the mark? The court said that it clearly did not belong to the importer, who had disclaimed rights to the IP in its agreement: "In the face of that disavowal it is difficult to see on what possible basis Infitech could nonetheless acquire the very rights it agreed did not belong to it."

But the court did accept the principle that an importer/ distributor can acquire a reputation in the goods that it sells. But only where it adds something to the mark or get-up "to identify itself as the source of the goods".

Wayne Meiring


Spoor & Fisher JerseyAfrica House, Castle StreetSt Helier, Jersey JE4 9TWChannel IslandsTel: +44 1534 838000Fax: +44 1534 838001

info@spoor.co.ukwww.spoor.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article