South Africa: South African Treasury Approval Not Required For The Assignment Of Intellectual Property To Foreigners

Last Updated: 24 October 2011
Article by Theo Doubell

1. Introduction:

Until recently, "capital" as contemplated regulation 10(1)(c) of the South African Exchange Control Regulations, issued in terms of the Currency and Exchanges Act, No 9 of 1933 (the "Regulations), has been interpreted broadly so as to include intellectual property, as a result, chiefly, of the judgment in Couve and another v Reddot International (Pty) Ltd 2004 (6) SA 425 (W) ("Couve"). As a consequence, the practice was to seek the prior approval of the National Treasury whenever a South African resident assigned ownership (or granted rights) in respect of intellectual property (i.e. "expatriated") to foreign residents. Failure to obtain such approval was presumed, by authority of Couve, to result in the transaction, effecting the expatriation of the intellectual property, being void ab initio. After a judgement in the course of 2010 that conflicted with the position in Couve, the Supreme Court of Appeal (the "SCA"), in the matter of Oilwell (Pty) Limited v Protec International Limited and others 2011 (4) SA 394 (SCA) ("Oilwell"), clarified, firstly, that intellectual property does not constitute "capital" as contemplated in regulation 10(1)(c) of the Regulations and, secondly, that it could not therefore form the subject of "export" of capital as contemplated therein. Accordingly, the legal position as it applies is that intellectual property transfers, internationally by South African residents do not require the approval of the National Treasury. The article below outlines some of the aspects considered by the SCA in making its findings.

2. Regulation 10(1)(c) of the Exchange Control Regulations and Couve v Reddot International (Pty) Ltd 2004 (6) SA 425 (W):

Regulation 10(1)(c), under the heading "restriction on export of capital", provides as follows:

"No person shall, except with permission granted by the Treasury and in accordance with such conditions as the Treasury may impose ...enter into any transaction whereby capital or any right to capital is directly or indirectly exported from the Republic"

In the earlier Couve judgment, which concerned inter alia the validity of an agreement to assign rights to patent applications by a South African entity to a foreign company, entered into without the prior consent of the SA Reserve Bank (the agent of the National Treasury in regard to exchange control issues); the court held that within the meaning of regulation 10(1)(c) of the Regulations patent applications and patents are 'capital' and as such that the assignment thereof would constitute 'export' of capital. The court further held that a transaction that is in contravention of regulation 10(1)(c) would be ab anitio void. This interpretation was held, generally, to be correct in a subsequent case, Pratt v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2004] 4 All SA 306 (T) ("Pratt").

Subsequent to Couve and Prat, the exchange control department of the SA Reserve Bank (now called the Financial Surveillance Department and hereinafter "Excon"), in practice, adopted an approach corresponding to the court's findings in Couve and, in many guidelines, circulars and rulings, prescribed that all transactions pertaining to the expatriation of intellectual property by South African residents, to non-residents, required its prior written approval, otherwise such transactions would fall foul of regulation 10(1)(c) and be rendered void ab initio, in addition to being criminal sanctions contained in regulation 22 of the Regulations. Accordingly, participants in cross-border transactions involving the expatriation of intellectual property would ordinarily, prior to the consummation of such transactions, seek the approval of the Excon through the intercession of authorised dealers (typically the major commercial banks). This led, in many instances, to drawn out transactions, entailing various rounds of negotiations and amendments to agreements so as to comply with the diktats of the Excon, to the detriment, in some instances of the transactions.

3. Oilwell (Pty) Limited v protec International Limited and others 2011 (4) SA 394 (SCA) ("Oilwell"):

The judgment of the "SCA" in Oilwell related to an appeal of an earlier judgment of the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Oil Well (Pty) Limited v Protec International Limited and Others (44835/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 7 (17 February 2010)). The court a quo had come to the the conclusion that Couve was wrongly decided inter alia because intellectual property rights were not 'capital' within the meaning of the term as used in the Regulations; accordingly, regulation 10(1)(c) could not act to preclude the expatriation of the subject intellectual property (trade marks). The judgment however left the possibility that its finding might not apply to other categories of intellectual property.

4. "Capital" and the" Export" thereof:

The SCA in Oilwell largely confined itself to consideration of two aspects: firstly, whether the subject transaction fell within the ambit of regulation 10(1)(c) and, secondly, the effect if the expatriation of intellectual property properly fell, properly, within the ambit of regulation 10(1)(c).

The SCA considered the general scheme of the the legislation in terms of which the Regulations were issued as well as the Regulations themselves, in order to establish whether trade marks (and by parity of reasoning, patents, designs and copyright) fell under rubric of 'capital' as contemplated in the Regulations. The SCA reiterated that the significance of a word in any particular case depended on the context of its use; and that the word "capital" in the context of the Regulations could only be used in the financial sense because the Regulations were, in terms of their empowering statute, supposed to deal with matters relating to currency (banking and exchange rates). Therefore, in this context capital could only conceivably have a meaning concerning "cash for investment or money that could be used to produce further wealth". The SCA also considered, in adopting this restrictive interpreation of the term "capital", that the Regulations provided for administrative and criminal penalties in regulation 22.

Importantly, in regard to trade marks and other intellectual property, the SCA emphasised the territorial nature thereof and, therefore, the similarity of these rights to immovable property, and the corresponding anomaly of these rights being capable of "export", within the meaning of the Regulations.

The SCA accordingly concluded that the court a quo had been correct in finding that trade marks were not capital, nor could they form the subject matter of "export", as contempleted in the Regulations.

5. Effect of contravening Regulation 10(1):

After making the above finding the SCA proceeded to consider the effect of the failure to obtain the prior approval of Excon to an underlying agreement governing a transaction; in the light of the finding in "Couve" that such a failure would result in the agreement and underlying transaction being void ab initio.

The SCA determined, after citing various judicial decisions, that the Regulations were promulgated in the public interest and not to protect any private interests, by for instance, providing an unwilling debtor with a ready instrument for evading liability through means of the invalidity of the underlying transaction. The purpose of the Regulations were determined by the SCA to simply enable the National Treasury to exercise proper control over transactions affecting foreign currency, in order to protect South Africa's foreign reserves; hence the inclusion of the criminal sanction in regulation 22, which enables National Treasury to enforce compliance with the Regulations. The fact that the Regulations elsewhere provide for the attachcment by the National Treasury of monies and goods in respect of which a contravention has been committed was found, by the SCA, to be indicatory of the excessiveness which could result were the underlying transaction, additionally, to be invalidated by a contravention of a peremptory provision in the nature of regulation 10(1)(c).

The court found that this did not mean that in the absence of the National Treasury's consent the transaction would be enforceable. Parties to a contract are obliged, under the circumstances, to take the necessary steps to obtain such approval. Further, such National Treasury approval could ex post facto be obtained in respect of any transction (a point of particular significance in the context of contraventions of regulation 3(1)(c), in regard to the prior approval of royalty outflows resulting from in-licence arrangements in respect of intellectual property owned by foreign residents). A transaction concluded without the approval of the National Tresaury is therefore not void at the behest or election of one of the parties, although a party could rely on this ground where the National Treasury has refused to grant ex post facto approval. Under the aforementioned circumstances, none of the parties to the transction would be entitled to restitution, as it would ordinarily be possible, however, the National Treasury could rely on the provisions of the Regulations (namely regulations 22A, 22B and 22C) to undo the effect or proposed effect of a transaction condluded without its prior approval.

6. Implications of Oilwell Judgement to the Expatriation of intellectual property and rights thereto:

The judgment of the SCA has had far reaching implications in regard to the expatriation of intellectual property by South African residents to foreign residents, in the following regard:

  • Intellectual property and the rights thereto do not consitute "capital" as contemplated in the Regulations nor are they capable of "export", within the meaning of the Regulations; consequently, the expatriation of intellectual property or the rights thereto by South African residents to foreign residents does not require the prior approval of the National Treasury;
  • The flow, overseas, of royalties and licence fees in respect of intellectual property in-licence arrangements still requires the prior approval of the National Treasury (and the Department of Trade and Industry, in regard inter alia to the quantum of royalties and licence fees) in terms of regulation 3(1)(c) of the Regulations, which approval can be obtained ex post facto after conclusion of the underlying transaction;
  • The failure to obtain the prior approval of National Treasury does not invalidate ab initio a transaction; nonetheless, National Treasury could invoke regulations 22A, 22B and 22C to undo the effect of a transaction concluded without its prior approval; and
  • In the event of the National Treasury invoking regulations 22A, 22B and 22C, the parties to the transaction might not be able claim restitution on the basis inter alia of the par delictum rule.

It is worth noting, in addition to the above, that the expatriation of intellectual property by South African residents to foreign residents, could still have implications in terms of other regulatory instruments. This is particularly so in regard to South African income tax as it applies to inter alia:

  • The tax on capital gains in respect of the disposal of the intellectual property;
  • Taxable recoupments which could arise as a result of the disposal of intellectual property;
  • The application of the deeming provisions in respect of donations tax, where the intellectual property is disposed for inadequate consideration;
  • The need to assess the benefits derived from the expatriation of intellectual property from South Africa relative to the benefits derived from South Africa remaining the situs of research and development as a result of the tax incentives provided by section 11D of South Africa's Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962;
  • The need to assess the benefits derived from the expatriation of intellectual property from South Africa relative to the prohibition or limitation, in terms of section 23I, of certain deductions in respect of intellectual property, where such intellectual propert is created in South Africa, expatriated to a foreign locale, and is then licensed back to the initial proprietor for consideration in the form of a royalty;
  • The need to assess the benefits derived from the expatriation of intellectual property from South Africa relative to the likelyhood of the application of the withholding tax on royalties, where the former resident proprietor, commercialises the intellectual property, subsequent to its expatriation, in terms of a licence agreement with the foreign proprietor; and
  • Transfer pricing provisions in regard to the cross-border transfer of intellectual property between connected parties and the related consideration therefor.

Further pertinent aspects to consider, regarding the expatriation of intellectual property by South African residents to foreign residents include:

  • The on-going suggestions in industry circles that National Treasury may be considering regulating the expatriation of intellectual property either through the amendment of the Regulations or through a separate legal instrument (conduct which could itself fall foul of our treaty obligations in regard to Article 4 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights);
  • Regulation 17 of the regulations issued in terms of Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Act, No. 51 of 2008 ("IPR Act"), which purportedly bars the expatriation of intellectual property emanating from publicly financed research and development, without the prior approval of the National Intellectual Property Management Office (by invalidating the underlying transaction in terms of which such intellectual property is expatriated), and which itself appears to be ultra vires in terms of the IPR Act; and
  • The implications of expatriating intellectual property to foreign resident entities in regard to a beneficial owners title and/or entitlement to litigate independently of the foreign resident proprietor and in regard, in such circumstances, the proper quantification of infringement damages where title is segregated from the beneficial owner of the intellectual property.

Lastly, the authors deem it outside the scope of this article to criticise the Oilwell judgment or to assess the extent to which the judgment should or could be interpreted as limited to South African intellectual property rights or statutory intellectual property only, based on arguments raised by the SCA, such as territoriality.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions