Can the state take your trademark? Understanding South Africa’s Expropriation Act

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Can the state take your trademark? Understanding South Africa’s Expropriation Act

Sponsored by

spoor-fisher-400px.png
Johannesburg city centre with the South African flag on the sides of a building

Herman Blignaut of Spoor & Fisher South Africa addresses whether the act extends to intellectual property rights and reassures brand owners that constitutional protection remains intact

Property comes in many forms. It can be land and buildings, vehicles, furniture, or other physical things we use or own. But it also includes intangible assets, such as intellectual property (IP); for example, trademarks, patents, and copyrights. These are recognised as property and are protected under Section 25 of the South African Constitution, just like physical property.

The Expropriation Act, No. 13 of 2024, which came into effect on January 24 2025, has sparked concern and debate. While the government has given assurances about its purpose, some uncertainty remains about how it will be used.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has stated that the act is not a tool for confiscation but rather a legal framework to help achieve fair access to land in a way that aligns with the Constitution. Despite this, there is still scepticism in some quarters.

The law has also drawn international attention. Recently, some white South Africans were accepted into the US as refugees. According to reports, one of the reasons given was the belief that they are victims of race-based discrimination – including concerns about property being taken without compensation. This was understood by some as a reference to the Expropriation Act.

Given all the debate and questions around expropriation in South Africa, it is understandable that owners of IP might wonder: could my trademark or other IP rights be taken without compensation under this law?

Here are the key points to consider:

  • IP is excluded – the Expropriation Act does not apply to trademarks or other types of IP. The provisions dealing with compensation – including cases where compensation may be nil – apply only to land.

  • Limited circumstances for nil compensation – in Section 12(3), the act sets out specific cases where land may be expropriated without compensation. These include land that is unused, held purely for speculative reasons, or abandoned, or where the amount the state has invested in the land is more than its market value.

  • Constitutional protection remains in place – the Constitution still requires that any expropriation must be for a public purpose or in the public interest, and must be accompanied by just and equitable compensation. This applies to all types of property, including IP.

  • Courts will oversee the process – even in cases involving land, any expropriation must go through proper legal processes. Courts have the power to review and ensure that the law is followed and the Constitution is respected.

In short, the Expropriation Act does not allow the government to take IP without compensation. The law is focused on land and specific land-related situations. Owners of trademarks and other IP rights do not need to be concerned that these assets could be affected in the same way.

While land reform is a complex and ongoing issue, the protection of IP in South Africa remains strong and is backed by both the Constitution and the courts.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article