Africa: Genuine use and reputation in South Africa

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Howard Hogan, IP partner at Gibson Dunn, says AI deepfakes are driving lawyers to rethink how IP protects creativity and innovation
Vivien Chan joins us for our ‘Women in IP’ series to discuss gender bias in the legal profession and why the business model followed by law firms leaves little room for women leaders
Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of IPNote, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, has taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Greg Munt, who has moved from Griffith Hack to James & Wells after four decades, hails his new firm’s approach to client service
Practitioners warn that closing the Denver regional office could trigger a domino effect, threatening local innovation and access to IP resources
Gift this article