P Ginsburg SC and A De Vos SC instructed by Adams & Adams, Pretoria For the respondent: Savage Jooste & Adams, Pretoria

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Valentino Globe BV v Phillips and another [1998] 4 All SA 1 (A)

Case Law

Country

Country Location

Latitude: -28.58043087631903

Longitude: 24.820993917210945

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Keywords

Case Summary: Section 36(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 62 of 1963 ("the Act") and section 27(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of1993 provide that if registered trademarks are not used for a continuous period of five years, they may be removed from the register. In the Court, a quo the trademark under consideration, "Valentino" was removed from the register on the ground of non use. The respondent appealed. The Court considered whether the First Respondent was a person aggrieved by the registration of the Appellant's trademark. It held that the onus rests upon the Applicant for removal to establish, as a reasonable possibility, that he is a person aggrieved. The Court considered whether the First Respondent was a person aggrieved by the registration of theAppellant's trademark. The court concluded that the First Respondent was not an "aggrieved" person and his application for the removal of the Appellant's trademark should have failed. Hence, the appeal was upheld with costs.

Case Significance: For one to qualify to apply for the removal of a trademark, one has to demonstrate that they are an aggrieved person with prima facie evidence of interest.

Related Law

Notes: The court emphasized that an applicant had to have a substantial interest in the mark or must substantially be damaged by it remaining on the register so long as the application was not in bad faith, vexatious, or without any substance.

Collection

Valentino Globe BV v Phillips and another [1998] 4 All SA 1 (A).pdf
English
Download View