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

A counterfeiting crackdown targeting fake FIFA World Cup merchandise and new partner hires by CMS, HGF and Winston Strawn were also among the top talking points
Law firms need to accept the hard truth: talent migration isn't personal; it's business as usual
Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Gift this article