RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/ZAF/1
12May1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1982)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
South Africa
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation of
South Africa, thequestions puttoitandtheresponses given inthereview oflegislation ontrademarks,
geographical indications andindustrial designs inthecontext ofthemeeting oftheCouncil of
11to15November 1996.1,2
_______________
I. INTRODUCTION
Trademarks
Thelawoftrademarks inSouth Africa isgoverned bytheTrade Marks ActNo.194of1993
("the Trade Marks Act") which came intoforce on1May1995. Administrative matters related to
theoperation oftheActarecontained intheTrade Mark Regulations of1995.3
Some South African legislative history isrelevant tocertain questions posed. TheTrade Marks
Actrepealed theTrade Marks ActNo.62of1963 (asamended) which was,itself, broadly based on
theBritish Trade Marks Actof1938. Inturn,theTrade Marks Act1963repealed ThePatents, Designs,
Trade Marks andCopyright ActNo.9of1916. Thetrademark provisions ofthe1916 Actwere, in
turn, based upon those oftheBritish Trade Marks Actof1905.
South Africa 'slegislative response tointernational developments inthetrademark fieldwas
primarily prompted bytheprovisions oftheEuropean Directive Relating totheHarmonization ofTrade
Mark Law, byoneofitsmanifestations, namely, thefirstdraftoftheUnited Kingdom 'sTrade Marks
Actand,bytheprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement. Asamatter ofpolicy, where provisions ofthe
1916 or1963 Trade Marks Actshadfunctioned effectively inandforSouth Africa which were not
inconflict withtheTRIPS Agreement, suchprovisions wereretained intheTrade Marks Actof1993.
South Africa 'shistoric legislative thread was,therefore, leftunbroken where possible.
There isatpresent further amending legislation pending before Parliament, namely theGeneral
Intellectual Property LawAmendment Bill1996. TheBillisexpected tocome intoforce before the
1Theminutes ofthismeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.
2Thefollow-up questions toECquestions 3and6were posed after thereview meeting.
3These lawsarecontained indocument IP/N/1/ZAF/T/1 and2.IP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page2
endof1996 andisintended toamend theTrade Marks Acttobring itcompletely inlinewiththe
trademark provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
South Africa acceded totheParis Convention on1December 1947. TheTrade Marks Act
isgenerally inlinewiththesubstantive provisions oftheParis Convention. TheGeneral Intellectual
Property LawAmendment Bill1996 isalsoaimed ataddressing anyshortfalls inthisregard.
Geographical indications
There isnospecific legislation inSouth Africa dealing withtheprotection ofgeographical
indications. Despite this,andingeneral terms, South African common lawandtheprovisions ofcertain
statutes offer aconsiderable degree ofprotection togeographical indications compatible withthe
provisions ofArticles 22and23oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Statutory provisions include thefollowing:
Section 10(2)(b) oftheTrade Marks Actof1993:
10. Thefollowingmarksshallnotberegisteredastrademarksor,ifregistered,shall,subject
totheprovisions ofSections 3and70,beliable toberemoved from theregister:
(2) amark which -
(b) consists exclusively ofasignoranindication which mayserve, in
trade, todesignate thekind,quality, quantity, intended purpose, value,
geographical origin orother characteristics ofthegoods orservices,
orthemode ortimeofproduction ofthegoods orofrendering the
services;
Section 10(12) oftheTrade Marks Actof1993:
10. Thefollowingmarksshallnotberegisteredastrademarksor,ifregistered,shall,subject
totheprovisions ofSections 3and70,beliable toberemoved from theregister:
(12) amark which isinherently deceptive ortheuseofwhich would belikely to
deceive orcause confusion, becontrary tolaw,becontra bones mores ,orbe
likely togiveoffence toanyclassofpersons;
Section 34(2)(b) oftheTrade Marks Actof1993:
34. (2) Aregistered trademark isnotinfringed by:
(b) theusebyanyperson ofanybona fidedescription orindication of
thekind,quality,quantity,intendedpurpose,value,geographicalorigin
orother characteristics ofhisgoods orservices, orthemode ortime
ofproduction ofthegoods ortherendering ofservices;
Section 43(1) and(2)oftheTrade Marks Actof1993:
43. (1) Amark capable ofdistinguishing, inthecourse oftrade, goods orservices
ofpersons whoaremembers ofanyassociation from goods orservices of
persons whoarenotmembers thereof, shall, onapplication inthemannerIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page3
prescribed andsubject totheprovisions ofthissection, beregistrable asa
collective trademark inrespect ofsuchfirst-mention goods orservices inthe
name ofsuchassociation astheproprietor thereof.
(2) Geographical names orother indications ofgeographical origin maybe
registered ascollective trademarks.
Section 1(read withSections 6and7)oftheMerchandise Marks Actof1941:4
1. Definitions
InthisAct,unless thecontext indicates otherwise:
"false trade description" means anytrade description, whether ornotitconsists ofor
includes atrademark orpartofatrademark, which isfalseinamaterial respect as
regards thegoods towhich itisapplied, andincludes every alteration ofatrade
description, whether bywayofaddition, effacement orotherwise, ifthatalteration
makes thedescription falseinamaterial respect;
"trade description" means anydescription, statement orother indication, direct or
indirect, astothenumber, quantity, measure, gauge orweight ofanygoods, oras
tothename ofthemanufacturer orproducer orastotheplace ofcountry inwhich
anygoods weremade orproduced, orastothemode ofmanufacturing orproducing
anygoods, orastothematerial ofwhich anygoods consist, orastoanygoods being
thesubject ofanexisting patent, privilege, orcopyright, andincludes anyfigure, word
ormark which, according tothecustom ofthetrade, iscommonly taken tobean
indication ofanyoftheaforementioned matters;
...
6. Forging orfalsely applying trademark andapplying trademark description
Anyperson who:
(a) forges anytrademark; or
(b) falsely applies togoods anytrademark; or
(c) ...
(c)bis...
(c)ter...
(d) ...
4Sections 6and7ofthisLawarecontained indocument IP/N/1/ZAF/G/1; theLawasawhole hasbeen notified as
an"other law" intheareaoftrademarks (seedocument IP/N/1/ZAF/1, p.7).IP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page4
(e) applies anyfalsetrade description ofgoods,
shallbeguilty ofanoffence, unless, ...
7. Saleofgoods bearing forged trademarks andfalsetrade descriptions
Anypersonwhosellsanygoodstowhichanyforgedtrademarkorfalsetradedescription
isapplied, ortowhich anytrademark isfalsely applied, shallbeguilty ofanoffence,
unless, ...
Section 9oftheTrade Practices Actof1976:
9. Prohibition ofcertain advertisements, statements, communications, descriptions and
indications
Noperson shall:
(a) publish ordisplay anyadvertisement which isfalseormisleading inmaterial
respects orcause suchadvertisement tobepublished ordisplayed; or
(b) inconnection withthesaleorlending ofgoods, directly orindirectly make
anystatement orcommunication orgiveanydescription orindication which
isfalseormisleading inmaterial respects inrespect ofthenature, properties,
advantages orusesofsuchgoods orinrespect ofthemanner in,conditions
onorprices atwhich suchgoods maybepurchased, leased orotherwise
acquired; or
(c) inconnection withtherendering orprovision ofanyservices, directly or
indirectly make anystatement orcommunication orgiveanydescription or
indication which isfalseormisleading inmaterial respects inrespect ofthe
nature, properties, advantages orusesofsuchservices orinrespect ofthe
manner in,conditions onorprices atwhich such service isrendered or
provided.
Section 12(1) oftheLiquor Products ActNo.60of1989:5
12. Prohibitions offalseormisleading descriptions forliquor products
(1) Noperson shalluseanyname, word, expression, reference, particulars or
indication inanymanner, either byitselforincoherence withanyotherverbal,
written, printed, illustrated orvisual material, inconnection withthesaleof
aliquor product inamanner thatconveys orcreates orislikely toconvey or
create afalseormisleading impression astothenature, substance, quality,
composition orother properties, ortheclass, cultivar, origin, age,identity,
ormanner orplace ofproduction, oftheliquor product.
5Section 12ofthisLawiscontained indocument IP/N/1/ZAF/G/1; theLawasawhole hasbeennotified asan"other
law" intheareaoftrademarks (seedocument IP/N/1/ZAF/1, p.7).IP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page5
Industrial designs
Thelawofindustrial designs inSouth Africa isgoverned bytheDesigns ActNo.195of1993
("the Designs Act") which came intoforce on1May1995, andintheDesign Regulations of1995.6
Historically, South African design legislation hashadaclose relationship withBritish design
law.TheSouth African Patents, Designs, Trade Marks andCopyright ActNo.9of1916wasbased,
asfarasdesigns were concerned, ontheBritish Designs Actof1907. TheDesigns ActNo.57of
1967which repealed thePatents, Designs, Trade Marks andCopyright Actof1916was,inturn,broadly
based ontheBritish Registered Designs Actof1949. South African design lawhasnowsetitsown
course withthecurrent Designs ActNo.195of1993.
TheDesigns Act1993 repealed theprevious Designs ActNo.57of1967. Indrafting the
Designs Act1993, cognisance wastaken ofinternational developments inregard totheprotection of
industrial designs, inparticular thedesign provisions ascontained intheBritish Copyright, Designs
andPatents Act1988. Certain aspects oftheSouth African legislation, namely toprovide forinregard
totheprotection offunctional designs, wereprompted byrecent developments inSouth Africa itself,
where theeffect ofalegislative amendment oftheCopyright Actwasthatcopyright could nolonger
berelied upontoprevent thereproduction ofthree-dimensional articles ofautilitarian nature. Unlike
theposition intheUK,however, theDesigns Act1993 provides forregistration rights inrespect of
functional designs. Indrafting theDesigns Act1993, anattempt wasalsomade tocomply withthe
provisions ofthedraftTRIPS Agreement asitexisted atthattime. However, asamatter ofpolicy,
where provisions ofthe1967 Actwere notinconflict withtheTRIPS Agreement, suchprovisions
were retained intheDesigns Actof1993.
ThereisatpresentfurtheramendinglegislationpendingbeforeParliament,namelytheIntellectual
Property Laws Amendment Bill1996. TheBillisexpected tocome intoforce before theendof1996
andisintended toamend, interalia,theDesigns Act1993tobring itcompletely inlinewiththerelevant
provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.
South Africa acceded totheParis Convention on1December 1947. TheDesigns Act1993,
isgenerally inlinewiththesubstantive provisions oftheParis Convention.
II. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS7
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
South Africa doesrecognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinaparty totheParis Convention. Interms ofSection 63(1) oftheTrade Marks Act1993, the
StatePresident declares countries tobe"convention countries" bynotice intheGovernment Gazette.
Thelastnotice waspublished intheGovernment Gazette of1November 1996(Notice 1559of1996).
Duetoanoversight, thelistwasnotupdated toinclude WTO Members notparties totheParis
Convention. Thiswillberectified assoonaspossible.
6These lawsarecontained indocuments IP/N/1/ZAF/D/1 and2.
7Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthe
context ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page6
III. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
1. Withreference toArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, could theSouth African Government
confirm whether under itstrademark lawsthelikelihood ofconfusion ispresumed inthecaseofuse
ofanidentical signforidentical goods orservices?
Theuseofanidentical signforidentical goods orservices is,bydefinition (Section 34(1)(a)
oftheTrade Marks Act), itself anactofinfringement. ThisSection doesnotrequire, inthecaseof
anidentical trademark, thattheuseofsuchmark would result inthelikelihood ofconfusion. There
is,therefore, noneedfortheinclusion ofapresumption suchasthatcontained inArticle 16.1ofthe
TRIPS Agreement.
2. Indetermining whether atrademark iswellknown, doesSouth Africa takeaccount ofthe
knowledge ofthetrademark intherelevant sector ofthepublic (Article 16.2oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Section 35oftheTrade Marks Actdealing withprotection ofwell-known marks under the
Paris Convention doesnotspecifically refertotaking account oftheknowledge ofatrademark inthe
relevant sector ofthepublic asprovided byArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
However, theAppellate Division oftheSupreme Court ofSouth Africa recently heldinthe
McDonald 'scase(McDonald 'sCorporation vJoburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty)LtdandDaxProp
CC1997 (I)SA1(A))thatamark willbeconsidered wellknown inSouth Africa ifitisknown to
asubstantial number ofpersons interested inthegoods orservices inquestion. TheAppellate Division
oftheSupreme Court hastherefore interpreted Section 35inamanner compatible withArticle 16.2
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thisisnowbinding onallSouth African Courts.
Section 35will,however, beamended bytheGeneral Intellectual Property LawAmendment
Bill1996 (seetheIntroduction above) toinclude thisprovision specifically.
3. Until now, South Africa hasnottaken anysteptoimplement initslegislation theprovisions
ofSection 3ofPartII("Geographical Indications") oftheTRIPS Agreement. Howandwhen does
South Africa intend toafford thisprotection?
Reference ismade totheIntroduction above indicating theextent towhich South African law
already protects geographical indications. Further legislative amendment willbeundertaken in1997.
[Follow-up question from theEC]
AccordingtotheanswerofSouthAfricatoquestion3,furtherlegislativeamendmentsconcerning
geographical indications willbeundertaken in1997. Could South Africa provide information about
whatsuchamendments would contain?
Theamendments willensure thatSouth Africa complies with itsobligations under
Articles 22and23oftheTRIPS Agreement.
4. Isthere anyprovision intheSouth African legislation which provides foradefinition of
geographical indications inlinewiththedefinition inArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement?
There isnospecific provision inSouth African legislation providing adefinition ofgeographical
indications inlinewiththedefinition inArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. However, thescope
ofprotection ofexisting South African law(common andstatute), referred tointheIntroduction, isIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page7
considered tobewideenough toinclude geographical indications asdefined inArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
5. Canageographical indication berelied upon tooppose anapplication forregistration or
invalidate aregistered trademark which contains orconsists ofageographical indication (Article 22.3
oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Ageographical indication canberelied ontooppose anapplication forregistration, orinvalidate
aregistered trademark inthecircumstances referred toinSections 10(2)(b) and10(12) oftheTrade
Marks Actreferred tointheIntroduction. Such geographical indications would either beincapable
ofdistinguishing therelevant goods orservices orbeinherently deceptive orlikely, inuse,tocause
deception orconfusion.
6. Does South Africa afford protection ofageographical indication where there isareputation
inSouth Africa butintheabsence ofanygoodwill inSouth Africa (Article 22oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
ThecommonlawandstatutoryprovisionsreferredtointheIntroductionprotectinggeographical
indications, donotrequire theexistence ofanygoodwill inthegeographical indication inSouth Africa.
[Follow-up question from theEC]
Initsanswer toquestion 6,South Africa stated thatthecommon lawandstatutory provisions
protecting geographical indications donotrequire theexistence ofanygoodwill inSouth Africa.
However, acasebefore aSouth African court inthefieldoftrademarks hasdemonstrated thataforeign
rightholder cannot enforce her/his righttoatrademark intheabsence ofgoodwill inSouth Africa.
Could South Africa explain onwhatbasis itsnational courts cantakesuchdecisions?
Theexistence ofanactual goodwill inatrademark inSouth Africa isnolonger aprerequisite
foraforeign trademark owner toenforce hisorherrights inthiscountry byvirtue oftheprovisions
ofSection 35oftheTrade Marks Actof1993(seeforexample therecent judgement oftheSouth African
Supreme Court ofAppeal intheMcDonald 'scase(McDonald 'sCorporation vJoburgers Drive-Inn
Restaurant (Pty)LtdandDaxProp CC1997(I)SA1(A)).Therequirement inSection 35foramark
tobe"well-known" wasinterpreted bytheCourt tomean thatthemark mustbeknown (thatis,have
arepute) toasubstantial number ofpersons inSouth Africa interested orinvolved intherelevant field.
Ifageographical indication (foreign orlocal) enjoys areputation inSouth Africa, itsusein
anunauthorized manner willamount toastatement orindication which isfalseormisleading asamatter
offact. Thisisprohibited by,interalia,Section 1(read withSections 6and7)oftheMerchandise
Marks Actof1941 andbySection 9oftheTrade Practices Actof1976(seetheIntroduction above).
7. Withreference toArticle 23.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, doesSouth Africa afford protection
toamisused geographical indication identifying awineorspirit fromanyother WTO Member, where:
- thetrueorigin ofthegoods isindicated;
- thegeographical indication isusedintranslation;
- thegeographical indication isusedaccompanied byexpressions suchas"kind", "type",
"style", "imitation" orthelike?
Ifthetrueorigin ofthegoods isindicated inconjunction withamisused geographical indication,
South African lawwillprotect against suchmisuse ifthestatement oftrueorigin doesnotdispel or
negate themisleading orconfusing effect ofthemisused geographical indication. Thestatement ofIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page8
trueorigin willnotnecessarily, butmay, negate theunlawfulness ofsuchconduct. Thiswilldepend
onthefacts.
Incases ofthemisuse ofageographical indication intranslation, similar considerations apply.
Similar considerations alsoapply tothemisuse ofageographical indication accompanied by
expressions suchas"kind", "type", "style", "imitation" orthelike.Theessential question would be
whether, despite useofsuchwords, alikelihood ofconfusion ormisleading remains asamatter of
fact.
8. Does theSouth African legislation provide fortherefusal orthecancellation ofatrademark
forawineoraspirit which contains orconsists ofageographical indication identifying, respectively,
wines orspirits (Article 23.2oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Trademarks consisting solely ofgeographical indications identifying wines orspirits would
notberegistrable, orwould becapable ofremoval inthecircumstances ofSection 10(2)(b) and/or
Section 10(12) oftheTrade Marks Act(seetheIntroduction above).
Trademarks containing geographical indications andother matter, identifying wines orspirits,
might alsoberefused under Section 10(2)(b) (where thetrademark consists ofageographical indication
accompanied byother non-distinctive matter) orSection 10(12), ifsuchmark isinherently deceptive
orwould, inuse,belikely todeceive orcause confusion, becontrary tolaw,becontra bones mores ,
orbelikely togiveoffence toanyclassofpersons.
9. DoestheSouth African Design Act195of1993givetheowner ofaprotected industrial design
therighttopreventthirdpartiesnothavinghisconsentfrommaking,sellingorimportingarticlesbearing
orembodying adesign which isacopy, orsubstantially acopy, oftheprotected design, when such
actsareundertaken forcommercial purposes, interms ofArticle 26.1oftheTRIPS Agreement,
irrespective ofthenature ofthearticles which bearorembody thedesign?
Section 20(1) oftheDesigns Actisfullycompatible withArticle 26.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Itconfers ontheregistered proprietor therighttoexclude thirdpersons frommaking, importing, using
ordisposing ofanyarticle included intheclassinwhich thedesign isregistered andembodying the
registereddesignoradesignnotsubstantiallydifferentfromtheregistereddesign.Thisrightisrestricted
tothearticles intheclass inwhich thedesign isregistered. However, interms oftheIntellectual
Property Laws Amendment Bill1996, theproprietor mayextend hisapplication orregistration tocover
additional classes provided thedesign hasnotpreviously beenmade available tothepublic inrespect
ofarticles intheadditional classorclasses towhich theapplication orregistration istoextend.
Theexclusive rightgranted totheproprietor ofthedesign registration isnotlimited tosuch
actsundertaken forcommercial purposes; infringing actscanbeprohibited regardless ofthemotive
withwhich orcircumstances within which theprohibited actsarecarried out. Inother words, the
ofwhether suchactsareundertaken forcommercial purposes.
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Article 14oftheSouth African Trademarks Actappears toprovide asignificant degree of
discretion totheRegistrar toregister amark thatwould otherwise failtomeettherequirements for
registration. Inparticular, theprovision notes thattheRegistrar hasthisauthority in“special
circumstances ”andcanimpose “suchconditions andlimitations, ifany,hemaythink fittoimpose ”
ontheterms oftheregistration. Please explain howthisauthority isexercised, providing examplesIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page9
ifpossible. Also, please explain howthisprovision canbeviewed asbeing consistent withTRIPS
Article 16.1, which specifies thatthetrademark owner shallhavetheexclusive righttousethemark
vis-à-vis third parties.
Section 14oftheTrade Marks Actdoesnotgiveageneral discretion toallow marks ontothe
register which would, inanysituation, failtomeettherequirements ofregistration. Itonlyapplies
incases where atrademark sought toberegistered isinconflict withprior trademark rights assetout
inparagraphs (6),(14), (15)or(17)ofSection 10oftheAct.
Theprovision relating to"special circumstances" hasitsorigins intheSouth African Trade
Marks Actof1963, theBritish Trade Marks Actof1938, theSouth African Patents, Designs, Trade
Marks andCopyright Actof1916andtheBritish Trade Marks Actof1905(seetheIntroduction above).
Thisauthority hasbeeninvoked orapplied veryrarely. ExParte DeWetBros. (Pty)Limited
1940CPDistheonlyreported South African caseinpoint. Inthecasewhere theregistered trademark
hadnotbeenused, itwasheldthatitwould betruetosaythattheuserofthemark sought tobe
registered would notbea"concurrent user". Suchuserwould, insuchcircumstances, bea"special
circumstance" andwould fallwithin theambit ofthesub-section.
Theprovisions ofSection 14,inthisregard, areviewed asfalling within theexception contained
inArticle 17oftheTRIPS Agreement.
2. Article36(2)oftheSouthAfricanTrademarksActappearstoprecludetheownerofawell-known
mark toenforce hisrights against third parties whocanestablish useofthesame mark prior to
31August 1991. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withtheobligations ofTRIPS Article 2,
totheextent itincorporates Article 6bisoftheParis Convention, andofTRIPS Articles 16.2and16.3.
Section 36(2) oftheTrademarks Actprecludes theowner ofawell-known trademark from
enforcing hisrights against thirdparties whocanestablish bona fide(notany)useofthetrademark
from adateanterior to31August 1991.
Themain reason fortheinclusion ofthisprovision isthegeneral necessity interms ofSouth
African common law,ofsaving vested rights andnotlegislating retroactively. Furthermore, South
Africa onlyacceded totheTRIPS Agreement after1991andtheprovisions ofthatAgreement arenot
retroactive ineffect.
31August 1991 wasthedateonwhich notice wasfirstgiven totheSouth African public of
theintended inclusion inanewTrade Marks Actofsuchprovisions bypublication intheGovernment
Gazette.
Interms ofArticle 17oftheTRIPS Agreement, Members mayprovide limited exceptions
totherights conferred byatrademark provided thatsuchexceptions takeaccount ofthelegitimate
interests oftheowner ofthetrademark andofthird parties. Theprovisions ofSection 36(2) are
considered totakeaccount ofandbalance suchinterests.
3. Article 27oftheSouth African Trademarks Actpermits cancellation ofatrademark registration
ifthemark isnotused. Pursuant tosection 4ofthatArticle, theowner ofaregistered trademark may
prevent cancellation oftheregistration where thenon-use is“duetospecial circumstances inthetrade
andnottoanyintention nottouseortoabandon themark”.Please explain:
- howthisprovision complies withTRIPS Article 19.1; andIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page10
- thetypes ofcircumstances thatwould besufficient tosatisfy thisprovision, including,
where relevant, results ofadministrative orjudicial decisions addressing thisissue.
Interms ofArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, circumstances arising independently ofthe
willoftheowner ofthetrademark which constitute anobstacle totheuseofthetrademark, suchas
import restrictions onorother Government requirements forgoods orservices protected bythe
trademark, shallberecognized asvalidreasons fornon-use. Itisconsidered thatsuchcircumstances
would constitute "special circumstances" interms ofSection 27(4) oftheTrade Marks Act.
There arenoadministrative decisions addressing thisissue.
TheSupreme Court ofSouth Africa hasnotyethadtheopportunity ofinterpreting orapplying
thisprovision inthecontext ofthecircumstances setoutinArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
4. Please explain whether theSouth African trademark lawestablishes apresumption oflikelihood
ofconfusion inthedetermination ofconfusing similarity incases where identical marks areusedon
identical goods, asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.1. Ifso,please identify andexplain thelegal basis
forthispresumption.
Seereply toECquestion 1.
5. Please explain howtheobligations inTRIPS Articles 22and23withrespect toprotection of
geographical indications areimplemented intheSouth African law.
Reference ismade totheIntroduction above indicating theextent towhich South African law
already protects Geographical Indications. Further legislative amendment willbeundertaken in1997.
6. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inSouth Africa, in
particular:
(a) theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
(b) theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
(c) thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
(d) thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including
adescription oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial use
isrequired); and
(e) whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) Industrial designs canbeprotected inSouth Africa under theDesigns Act,theCopyright
ActNo.98of1978, thePatents ActNo.57of1978 andtheTrade Marks ActNo.194of
1993.8
8TheCopyright Actiscontained indocument IP/N/1/ZAF/C/1; thePatents Actindocument IP/N/1/ZAF/P/1; inrespect
oftheother twolaws, reference ismade totheIntroduction above.IP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page11
South Africa hasadedicated statute toprotect industrial designs, namely theDesigns Act
No.195of1993. Adesign registration affords protection specifically directed attheshape
andappearance ofanindustrially manufactured article asdepicted intherepresentations as
filed. Traditionally thisprotection doesnotextend totheunderlying principle ofthearticle
oritsfunctional purpose, inthesense thatacompeting article which hasadifferent shape and
appearance would notconstitute aninfringement, eventhought itfulfils theidentical functional
purpose. Accordingly, where theshape orconfiguration orappearance ofanarticle determines
itsselection foraparticular application, design protection under theDesigns Actwould be
ideally suited tosecure theexclusive rights tosuchanarticle.
TheDesigns Act1993, unlike theprevious Designs ActNo.57of1967, makes provision
fortwotypes ofdesigns toberegistered, namely aesthetic designs (toberegistered inPartA
oftheregister) andfunctional designs (toberegistered inPartFoftheregister). Anaesthetic
design asdefined asanydesign applied toanyarticle, whether forthepattern ortheshape
ortheconfiguration ortheornamentation thereof, orforanytwoormore ofthose purposes,
andbywhatever means itisapplied, having features which appeal toandarejudged solely
bytheeye,irrespective oftheaesthetic quality thereof.
Inthecaseofanaesthetic design registration, nofeature ofthearticle insofar asitisnecessitated
solely bythefunction which thearticle isintended toperform, noranymethod orprinciple
ofconstruction, shallafford theregistered proprietor anyrights interms oftheDesigns Act
inrespect ofsuchfeature, method orprinciple (Section 14(5) oftheDesigns Act).
Afunctional design isdefined asanydesign applied toanyarticle, whether forthe
pattern ortheshape ortheconfiguration thereof, orforanytwoormore ofthose purposes,
andbywhatever means itisapplied, having features which arenecessitated bythefunction
which thearticle istoperform, andincludes anintegrated circuit topography, amask work
andaseries ofmask works.
Afunctional design isthusintended toafford protection forfeatures which arenecessitated
bythefunction which thearticle isintended toperform. itshould benoted thatamethod or
principle ofconstruction isnotexcluded from protection inthecaseofafunctional design
registration. TheActalsodoesnotexpressly require thatthefeatures ofafunctional design
havetoappeal tooraretobejudged solely bytheeye.Itseems, therefore, thatafunctional
design registration mayafford protection thatgoesbeyond theprotection traditionally afforded
toanaesthetic design.
TheActprovides foranexclusion from protection asafunctional design: inthecaseofan
article which isinthenature ofaspare partforamachine, vehicle orequipment, nofeature
ofpattern, shape orconfiguration ofsucharticle shallafford theregistered proprietor ofa
functional design anyrights interms oftheDesigns Actinrespect ofsuchfeatures (Section 14(6)
oftheDesigns Act).
Itispossible, furthermore, thattheshape orformat orappearance ofanarticle mayalsobe
protected bywayofcopyright orpatents, orasatrademark, where therelevant requirements
aremet. There isnoprovision ineither theCopyright Act1978 ortheDesigns Act1993 or
inthePatents Act1978ortheTrade Marks Act1993, toprevent anoverlap ofrights obtained
under thedifferent Acts, apart fromanexclusion inthePatents Act(Section 25(2)) inregard
toliterary andartistic works assuch.
TheCopyright Actconfers fullcopyright protection onanoriginal artistic work. This
would include drawings orprototypes from which adesign isderived (definition of"artistic
work", "drawings" and"works ofcraftsmanship"). Protection isprovided against theIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page12
reproduction ofthework either directly orindirectly ortheadaptation ofthework intwoor
three-dimensional form. Noprotection isprovided against thereverse engineering ofauthorized
three-dimensional reproductions oftheoriginal underlying copyright work provided those
reproductions areindustrially manufactured articles whose purpose isprimarily utilitarian
(Section 15(3A) oftheCopyright Act).
TheTradeMarksActpermitstheregistrationofshape,configuration,patternandornamentation
astrademarks (definition of"marks" andSection 10(5) oftheTrade Marks Act). Provided
anindustrial design fulfils atrademark function (i.e.itiscapable ofidentifying aproduct and
distinguishing itfrom similar competing products), itmayberegistrable asatrademark.
ThePatents Actprovides fortheprotection ofanyinvention which isnew, notobvious,
andapplicable intradeorindustry oragriculture. Where theshape orconfiguration orformat
ofanarticle involves anovel andinventive feature, oranovel andinventive manufacturing
process, andotherwise complies withtherequirements ofthePatents Act,itmaybesusceptible
topatent protection.
Limited protection isalsoavailable under common lawonprinciples similar tothose
enunciated inInternational News Service vTheAssociated Press (1918) 248US215.
(b) TheDesigns Actfullycomplies withArticle 25.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Infactitgoes
further andextends protection tofunctional designs.
Toqualify forregistration under theDesigns Act,anaesthetic design mustbenewandoriginal,
andafunctional design newandnotcommonplace intheartinquestion (Section 14(1)(a) and
(b)).Inthecaseofanarticle inthenature ofaspare partforamachine, vehicle orequipment,
nofunctional design protection isavailable. TheDesigns Actprovides forabsolute novelty
tobeassessed withreference tothe"state oftheart".
Adesign shallbedeemed tobenewifitisdifferent from orifitdoesnotform partofthe
stateoftheartimmediately before theeffective dateofthedesign application. Although the
term"effective date" isnotusedintheDesigns Act,theeffective dateatwhich thenovelty
ofthedesign istobedetermined, shallbethedateoffiling (inthecaseofanon-convention
application inSouth Africa) orthepriority date(inthecaseofaconvention application inSouth
Africa), ortheso-called release dateofthedesign, whichever istheearlier. Therelease date
isdefined tomean thedateonwhich thedesign wasfirstmade available tothepublic (whether
intheRepublic ofSouth Africa orelsewhere) withtheconsent oftheproprietor orhis
predecessor intitle. Inthecasewhere arelease dateisapplicable, i.e.because thedesign was
made public prior tothefiling ofthedesign application, thedesign shallnotbedeemed to
benewunless anapplication fortheregistration ofsuchdesign islodged inSouth Africa within
sixmonths oftherelease date.
Thestateoftheartshallcomprise:
(i) allmatter which hasbeenmade available tothepublic (whether intheRepublic of
South Africa orelsewhere) bywritten description, byuseorinanyother way; and
(ii) allmatter contained inanapplication fortheregistration ofadesign intheRepublic,
orinanapplication inaconvention country which hassubsequently beenregistered
intheRepublic asaconvention application.
Asregards theconcepts "original" (used inregard toanaesthetic design) and"not
commonplace intheartinquestion" (used inregard toafunctional design), these conceptsIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page13
havenotbeendefined intheDesigns Act,andwillhavetobegiven legalcontent byjudicial
interpretation inourCourts ofLaw. TheSouth African Courts havenotyethadtheopportunity
ofinterpreting theterms "original" and"notcommonplace intheartinquestion" inthecontext
ofSection 14oftheDesigns Act.Nodoubt theywilltakecognisance ofinterpretation attached
tothese terms incomparable foreign jurisdictions.
TheDesigns Actmakes provision foradeposit system ofdesign registration. Application
fortheregistration ofadesign ismade inthemanner prescribed bytheregulations. Aseparate
application must befiledforeachclassofgoods forwhich registration issought.
Itshould benoted thatgoods aredivided intodifferent classes (according totheLocarno
Classification), andthemonopoly right afforded byadesign registration isrestricted to
application ofthedesign toarticles which fallwithin theclassinwhich thedesign hasbeen
registered. Accordingly, ifdesign protection isrequired inrespect ofarticles falling within
different classes, separate design applications havetobefiledintherelevant classes.
Inthecaseofaconvention application, acertified copy ofthebasic application inthe
convention country istobesupplied, insupport oftheclaim toconvention priority.
Upon filing, theRegistrar ofDesigns examines theapplication inregard toformal requirements,
andiftheformal requirements aremet,anotification ofregistration isissued. Theapplicant
isthenrequired topublish theprescribed particulars regarding thedesign application inthe
South African Patent Journal, whereupon theregistration certificate isissued bytheRegistrar
ofDesigns.
Noopposition procedure inrespect ofdesign applications isavailable. However, any
person mayapply totheSupreme Court fortherevocation ofadesign registration.
TheCopyright Actconfers protection onanyoriginal artistic work. Registration isnota
requirement.
(c) Article 26oftheTRIPS Agreement iscomplied with. Theregistration ofadesign
(both aesthetic andfunctional) confers ontheregistered proprietor theexclusive righttomake,
import, useordispose ofanyarticle included intheclass inwhich thedesign isregistered
embodying thedesign oradesign notsubstantially different from theregistered design
(Section 20(1)). Thedisposing ofanarticle embodying aregistered design shall givethe
purchaser therighttouseordispose ofthatarticle. TheSouth African Courts havenotyet
hadtheopportunity ofinterpreting theterm"dispose of"inthecontext ofSection 20(1). In
itsordinary grammatical meaning theterm"dispose of"iswider than"selling" andwould
probably include letting, distributing, donating andselling.
Thetermofprotection ofanaesthetic design is15years andafunctional design 10years
subject tothepayment ofrenewal feesevery fiveyears (Section 22).
Copyright confers protection against thereproduction ofanoriginal artistic work either
directly orindirectly ortheadaptation ofsuchwork intwoorthree-dimensional form. The
termofcopyright inartistic work is50years aftertheyearinwhich theauthor dies.
(d) Interms oftheDesigns Act,theremedies available totheproprietor whose registered
design hasbeen infringed arethesame asthose available forallother infringements of
intellectual property rights. These are:
(i) interdict (injunction);IP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page14
(ii) surrender ofinfringement product oranyarticle orproduct ofwhich theinfringing
product form aninseparable part;
(iii) damages;
(iv) inlieuofdamages, anamount calculated onthebasis ofareasonable royalty which
would havebeenpayable bythelicensee orsub-licensee inrespect oftheregistered
design concerned.
Inthecaseofcopyright protection, provision isalsomade fortherecovery ofadditional
damages.
(e) Limited exceptions asenvisaged byArticle 26.2 have been provided. Thespare parts
exception mentioned above applies inrespect offunctional designs only. Furthermore,
compulsory licenses areavailable inthecaseofanabuse ofrights bytheproprietor. Design
rights aredeemed tobeabused ifthearticles towhich thedesign hasbeenapplied arenot
available toanadequate extent oronacommercial scaleinSouth Africa, orexcessive prices
arecharged forprotected articles.
Inregard tocopyright protection, reference hasalready beenmade tothereverse engineering
exception.
7. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
TheDesigns Actfullycomplies withtheprovisions ofArticle 25.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Textile designs areregistrable asaesthetic designs under theDesigns Act,specifically within class5
oftheClassification ofGoods assetoutinSchedule No.3 oftheRegulations. They arealsoprotected
andenjoy fullcopyright protection (even against reverse engineering) asoriginal artistic works under
theCopyright Act(seeDaGama Textile Co.LtdvVision Creations CC1995 (1)SA398(D)).
Application foradesign mustbemade within sixmonths ofthedateonwhich thedesign was
firstmade available tothepublic (whether inSouth Africa orelsewhere) withtheconsent ofthe
proprietor. Inaccordance withtheParis Convention, theDesigns Actprovides forarightofpriority
forsixmonths from thedateoffiling afirstapplication foradesign orsimilar rightinaconvention
country. Theofficial feesforregistering adesign according totheSchedule ofFees(Schedule No.1
oftheRegulations) andexcluding agent'sfees,isR100 perapplication. Additional feesmaybepayable
incertain circumstances, e.g.belated claim toconvention priority. Examination andpublication of
adesign registration havebeendealtwithabove.
Copyright protection requires noregistration andthere arenocosts involved.
8. Section 12oftheLiquor Products Actprohibits falseormisleading descriptions forwines and
spirits, including falsedescriptions oforigin. Thisprovision, however, doesnotextend touseofsuch
expressions as"kind" or"type". Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS Article 23.1
South African common lawmight well incertain circumstances where deception or
misrepresentation isfactually present through theuseofexpressions suchas"kind" or"type" afford
aremedy. However, situations areenvisaged where neither theLiquor Products Actnorthecommon
lawwould prohibit suchuse.Amending legislation tospecifically address Article 23.1ofTRIPS might
benecessary.
9. Section 27(1)(a) oftheTrade Marks Actof1993allows theremoval ofamarkfromtheregister
atanytimeinthecaseofabsence ofanintent tousethemark. There isnotimelimitimposed withIP/Q2/ZAF/1
Page15
respect tothisprovision. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS Article 19.1, which
provides thatifuseisrequired tomaintain registration ofatrademark, theregistration mayonlybe
cancelled afteranuninterrupted period ofnon-use ofatleastthree years.
Section 27(1)(a) isprimarily aimed atasituation existing atthetimeofanapplication for
registration ofatrademark. Anapplicant forregistration ofatrademark isrequired, interms ofthe
Trade Marks Act,tohavetheintention ofusing itatthetimeofmaking application. Intheabsence
ofsuchanintention tousethemark, Section 27(1)(a) oftheTrade Marks Actallows theremoval thereof
atanytime, butonlyinsuchacircumstance.
Section 27(1)(a) isnotviewed asbeing inconsistent withArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS Agreement
asthelatter doesnotaddress orintend todealwithrequirements foravalid trademark application.
Itrelates totherequirement ofusetomaintain aregistration. That situation isaddressed by
Section 27(1)(b) oftheTrade Marks Act.
V. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
1. Since itisnotclearly stipulated intheDesigns Actthattextile designs areprotected inconformity
withtheTRIPS Agreement, please explain under which provision oftheActorother copyright related
lawthese designs areprotected. Moreover, tomake surethattheopportunity toseekandobtain
protection fortextile designs isnotimpaired unreasonably, please explain yoursystem orpractice
particularly withregard tocost,examination orpublication (cf.Article 25.2oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Seereply toUSquestion 7.
2. Theword"selling" isnotincluded inthescope oftheexclusive rightprovided forinArticle 20
oftheDesigns Act.Ifthephrase "disposing of"corresponds totheword "selling", please elaborate
onthedifference between thetwo.
Seereply toUSquestion 6(c).