RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/W/47
11November 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4768)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Replies from South Africa toquestions posed bytheEuropean Community and
itsMember States1,Japan2andtheUnited States3
Thefollowing communication, dated 5November 1996, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofSouth Africa.
1Document IP/C/W/37
2Document IP/C/W/40
3Document IP/C/W/39IP/C/W/47
Page2
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS ONTRADEMARKS POSED BYTHE
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE UNITED STATES
Introduction
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.
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
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.
Replies
EC(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)),
itselfanactofinfringement. ThisSection doesnotrequire, inthecaseofanidentical trademark, that
theuseofsuchmark would result inthelikelihood ofconfusion. There is,therefore, noneedfor
theinclusion ofapresumption suchasthatcontained inArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
US(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.
Seeabove inrelation toEC(1).IP/C/W/47
Page3
EC(2) Indetermining whether atrademark iswell-known, 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(unreported judgment, dated 27August 1996) thatamark willbeconsidered well-
known inSouth Africa ifitisknown toasubstantial number ofpersons interested inthegoods or
services inquestion. TheAppellate Division oftheSupreme Court hastherefore interpreted Section
35inamanner compatible withArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thisisnowbinding onall
South African Courts.
Section 35will,however, beamended bytheGeneral Intellectual Property LawAmendment
Bill1996 (seeabove) toinclude thisprovision specifically.
US(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.
US(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 examples
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. ItonlyappliesIP/C/W/47
Page4
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 Actof1916 andtheBritish Trade Marks Actof1905.
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.
US(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; and
- 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 asvalid reasons 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.
US(9) Section 27(1)(a) oftheTrade Marks Actof1993allows theremoval ofamarkfromtheregister
atanytimeinthecaseofabsence ofanintent tousethemark. There isnotimelimitimposed with
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.IP/C/W/47
Page5
Itrelates totherequirement ofusetomaintain aregistration. Thatsituation isaddressed bySection
27(1)(b) oftheTrade Marks Act.
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS ONGEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS POSED
BYTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE UNITED STATES
Introduction
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 ofIP/C/W/47
Page6
persons whoarenotmembers thereof, shall, onapplication inthemanner
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:
1. Definitions
InthisAct,unless thecontext indicates otherwise:
'falsetrade 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)
(e) applies anyfalsetrade description ofgoods,
shallbeguilty ofanoffence, unless,...IP/C/W/47
Page7
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:
12. Prohibitions offalseormisleading descriptions forliquor products
(1) Noperson shall useanyname, 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.
Replies
EC(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.IP/C/W/47
Page8
US(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.
EC(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, is
considered tobewideenough toinclude geographical indications asdefined inArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
EC(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.
EC(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.
EC(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 of
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 beIP/C/W/47
Page9
whether, despite useofsuchwords, alikelihood ofconfusion ormisleading remains asamatter of
fact.
EC(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(seeabove).
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.
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS ONINDUSTRIAL DESIGNS POSED BY
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN
Introduction
Thelawofindustrial designs inSouth Africa isgoverned bytheDesigns ActNo.195of1993
("the Designs Act") which came intoforce on1May1995, andintheDesign Regulations of1995.
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 interaliatheDesigns Act1993tobring itcompletely inlinewiththerelevant
provisions oftheTRIPS Agreement.IP/C/W/47
Page10
South Africa acceded totheParis Convention on1December 1947. TheDesigns Act1993,
isgenerally inlinewiththesubstantive provisions oftheParis Convention.
Replies
US(6) Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inSouth Africa, in
particular:
- theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
- theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
- thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
- thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including
adescription oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial use
isrequired); and
- whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) Industrial designs canbeprotected inSouth Africa under theDesigns Act,theCopyright
ActNo.98of1978, thePatents ActNo.57of1978andtheTrade Marks ActNo.194
of1993.
South Africa hasadedicated statute toprotect industrial designs, namely theDesigns
ActNo.195of1993. Adesign registration affords protection specifically directed
attheshape andappearance ofanindustrially manufactured article asdepicted inthe
representations asfiled. Traditionally thisprotection doesnotextend totheunderlying
principle ofthearticle oritsfunctional purpose, inthesense thatacompeting article
which hasadifferent shape andappearance would notconstitute aninfringement, even
thought itfulfils theidentical functional purpose. Accordingly, where theshape or
configuration orappearance ofanarticle determines itsselection foraparticular
application, design protection under theDesigns Actwould beideally suited tosecure
theexclusive rights tosuchanarticle.
TheDesigns Act1993, unlike theprevious Designs ActNo.57of1967, makes
provision fortwotypes ofdesigns toberegistered, namely aesthetic designs (tobe
registered inPartAoftheregister) andfunctional designs (toberegistered inPartF
oftheregister). 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 asit
isnecessitated solely bythefunction which thearticle isintended toperform, norany
method orprinciple ofconstruction, shallafford theregistered proprietor anyrightsIP/C/W/47
Page11
intermsoftheDesignsActinrespectofsuchfeature,methodorprinciple(Section14(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 are
necessitated bythefunction which thearticle isintended toperform. itshould benoted
thatamethod orprinciple ofconstruction isnotexcluded fromprotection inthecase
ofafunctional design registration. TheActalsodoesnotexpressly require thatthe
features ofafunctional design havetoappeal tooraretobejudged solely bytheeye.
Itseems, therefore, thatafunctional design registration mayafford protection thatgoes
beyond theprotection traditionally afforded toanaesthetic design.
TheActprovides foranexclusion fromprotection asafunctional design: inthecase
ofanarticle which isinthenature ofaspare partforamachine, vehicle orequipment,
nofeature ofpattern, shape orconfiguration ofsucharticle shallafford theregistered
proprietor ofafunctional design anyrights interms oftheDesigns Actinrespect of
suchfeatures (Section 14(6) oftheDesigns Act).
Itispossible, furthermore, thattheshape orformat orappearance ofanarticle may
alsobeprotected bywayofcopyright orpatents, orasatrademark, where therelevant
requirements aremet. There isnoprovision ineither theCopyright Act1978 orthe
Designs Act1993orinthePatents Act1978ortheTrade Marks Act1993, toprevent
anoverlap ofrights obtained under thedifferent Acts, apart fromanexclusion inthe
Patents 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 thereproduction ofthework either directly orindirectly ortheadaptation of
thework intwoorthree-dimensional form. Noprotection isprovided against the
reverse engineering ofauthorized three-dimensional reproductions oftheoriginal
underlying copyright workprovided those reproductions areindustrially manufactured
articles whose purpose isprimarily utilitarian (Section 15(3A) oftheCopyright Act).
TheTrade Marks Actpermits theregistration ofshape, configuration, pattern and
ornamentation astrademarks (definition of"marks" andSection 10(5) oftheTrade
Marks Act). Provided anindustrial design fulfils atrademark function (i.e.itiscapable
ofidentifying aproduct anddistinguishing itfromsimilar competing products), itmay
beregistrable asatrademark.
ThePatents Actprovides fortheprotection ofanyinvention which isnew,notobvious,
andapplicable intrade orindustry oragriculture. Where theshape orconfiguration
orformat ofanarticle involves anovel andinventive feature, oranovel andinventive
manufacturing process, andotherwise complies withtherequirements ofthePatents
Act,itmaybesusceptible topatent protection.IP/C/W/47
Page12
Limited protection isalsoavailable under common lawonprinciples similar tothose
enunciated inInternational News Service vTheAssociated Press (1918) 248US215.
(b) TheDesigns Actfullycomplies withArticle 25.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Infact
itgoesfurther andextends protection tofunctional designs.
Toqualify forregistration under theDesigns Act,anaesthetic design must benew
andoriginal, andafunctional design newandnotcommonplace intheartinquestion
(Section 14(1)(a) and(b)). Inthecaseofanarticle inthenature ofaspare partfor
amachine, vehicle orequipment, nofunctional design protection isavailable. The
Designs Actprovides forabsolute novelty tobeassessed withreference tothe"state
oftheart".
Adesign shallbedeemed tobenewifitisdifferent from orifitdoesnotformpart
ofthestateoftheartimmediately before theeffective dateofthedesign application.
Although theterm"effective date" isnotusedintheDesigns Act,theeffective date
atwhich thenovelty ofthedesign istobedetermined, shallbethedateoffiling (in
thecaseofanon-convention application inSouth Africa) orthepriority date(inthe
caseofaconvention application inSouth Africa), ortheso-called release dateofthe
design, whichever istheearlier. Therelease dateisdefined tomean thedateonwhich
thedesign wasfirstmade available tothepublic (whether intheRepublic ofSouth
Africa orelsewhere) withtheconsent oftheproprietor orhispredecessor intitle.
Inthecasewhere arelease dateisapplicable, i.e.because thedesign wasmade public
prior tothefiling ofthedesign application, thedesign shallnotbedeemed tobenew
unless anapplication fortheregistration ofsuchdesign islodged inSouth Africa within
sixmonths oftherelease date.
Thestateoftheartshallcomprise:
(i) allmatter which hasbeenmade available tothepublic (whether intheRepublic
ofSouth Africa orelsewhere) bywritten description, byuseorinanyother
way; and
(ii) allmatter contained inanapplication fortheregistration ofadesign inthe
Republic, 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
concepts havenotbeendefined intheDesigns Act,andwillhavetobegiven legal
content byjudicial interpretation inourCourts ofLaw. TheSouth African Courts
have notyethadtheopportunity ofinterpreting theterms "original" and"not
commonplace intheartinquestion" inthecontext ofSection 14oftheDesigns Act.
Nodoubt theywilltakecognisance ofinterpretation attached tothese terms in
comparable foreign jurisdictions.
TheDesigns Actmakes provision foradeposit system ofdesign registration.
Application fortheregistration ofadesign ismade inthemanner prescribed bythe
regulations. Aseparate application must befiledforeachclassofgoods forwhich
registration issought.IP/C/W/47
Page13
Itshould benoted thatgoods aredivided intodifferent classes (according totheLocarno
Classification), andthemonopoly rightafforded byadesign registration isrestricted
toapplication ofthedesign toarticles which fallwithin theclassinwhich thedesign
hasbeenregistered. Accordingly, ifdesign protection isrequired inrespect ofarticles
falling within different classes, separate design applications havetobefiledinthe
relevant classes.
Inthecaseofaconvention application, acertified copyofthebasic 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 intheSouth 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 is
notarequirement.
(c) Article 26oftheTRIPS Agreement iscomplied with. Theregistration ofadesign
(both aesthetic andfunctional) confers ontheregistered proprietor theexclusive right
tomake, import, useordispose ofanyarticle included intheclassinwhich thedesign
isregistered embodying thedesign oradesign notsubstantially different from the
registered design (Section 20(1)). Thedisposing ofanarticle embodying aregistered
design shallgivethepurchaser therighttouseordispose ofthatarticle. TheSouth
African Courts havenotyethadtheopportunity ofinterpreting theterm"dispose of"
inthecontext ofSection 20(1). Initsordinary grammatical meaning theterm"dispose
of"iswider than"selling" andwould probably include letting, distributing, donating
andselling.
Thetermofprotection ofanaesthetic design is15years andafunctional design 10
years subject tothepayment ofrenewal feesevery fiveyears (Section 22).
Copyright confers protection against thereproduction ofanoriginal artistic workeither
directly orindirectly ortheadaptation ofsuchwork intwoorthree-dimensional form.
Thetermofcopyright inartistic work is50years aftertheyearinwhich theauthor
dies.
(d) Interms oftheDesigns Act,theremedies available totheproprietor whose registered
design hasbeeninfringed arethesame asthose available forallother infringements
ofintellectual property rights. These are:
(i) interdict (injunction);
(ii) surrender ofinfringement product oranyarticle orproduct ofwhich the
infringing product form aninseparable part;
(iii) damages;IP/C/W/47
Page14
(iv) inlieuofdamages, anamount calculated onthebasis ofareasonable royalty
which would havebeenpayable bythelicensee orsub-licensee inrespect of
theregistered design concerned.
Inthecaseofcopyright protection, provision isalsomade fortherecovery ofadditional
damages.
(e) Limited exceptions asenvisaged byArticle 26.2havebeenprovided. Thespare parts
exception mentioned above applies inrespect offunctional designs only. Furthermore,
compulsory licenses areavailable inthecaseofanabuse ofrights bytheproprietor.
Design rights aredeemed tobeabused ifthearticles towhich thedesign hasbeen
applied arenotavailable toanadequate extent oronacommercial scaleinSouth Africa,
orexcessive prices arecharged forprotected articles.
Inregard tocopyright protection, reference hasalready beenmade tothereverse
engineering exception.
JPN(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.paragraph 2ofArticle 25oftheTRIPS
Agreement).
US(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.
EC(9) Does theSouth 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 theIP/C/W/47
Page15
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
registered proprietor canprevent themaking, importing ordisposing ofinfringing articles regardless
ofwhether suchactsareundertaken forcommercial purposes.
JPN(2) Theword "selling" isnotincluded inthescope oftheexclusive right provided forin
Article 20oftheDesigns Act.Ifthephrase "disposing of"corresponds totheword "selling", please
elaborate onthedifference between thetwo.
Thishasbeendealtwithabove.