Most Read Contributor in South Africa, September 2016
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill seeks to amend the
Performer's Protection, Copyright, Trade Marks and Designs Acts
by including provisions which aim to recognise and protect
traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge includes traditional
performances having an indigenous origin and a traditional
character, copyright works of a traditional character, terms and
expressions of indigenous origin and traditional designs of
indigenous origin. After much criticism and debate, the Bill was
drafted and approved by the Department of Trade and Industry's
Portfolio Committee and, last Thursday, was approved in the
National Assembly. Eminent intellectual property practitioners and
academics alike have indicated that, while the idea behind the
legislation is laudable, the imprecise nature of the provisions is
likely to cause severe problems, for instance, the concept of
"indigenous community". This concept means any community
of people living within the borders of South Africa or which
historically lived within the geographic area located within the
borders of South Africa. Taking the amended Performers'
Protection Act as an example, it is stated that a traditional
performance is one recognised as such by an indigenous community.
This means that the mere claim of the status of a work, e.g. a
song, is enough to create the basis for ownership and, as a result,
a claim for royalties. How can a party then challenge this
"recognition"? One can consider where a performer must
now start paying royalties for a performance that has been going
for a number of years. The Act indicates that it does not amount to
infringement, but royalties must still be paid. This is unheard of
in intellectual property law, where the payment of royalties only
follows after a finding of infringement has been made.
The issue of a unilateral "recognition" of a
particular word as having an indigenous character is also found,
apart from a copyrighted work, in the provisions relating to trade
marks and designs. Again there is no appeal against a particular
group's claim that a particular trade mark or design has an
indigenous character. Furthermore, who decides on the delineation
of a specific group as people constituting an indigenous community?
The use of the concept "indigenous community" therefore
creates great uncertainty. This problem is exacerbated by the fact
that the Act creates retrospective subsistence of copyright, up to
50 years before the Act came into operation. Accordingly, the use
of something that was not copyrighted at the stage that use was
commenced can now amount to infringement, and, if not infringement,
then creating a duty to pay royalties. Another strange provision is
that copyright comes into existence when words are spoken or, as
the Act states, communicated to the public. But it is a tried and
tested principle of copyright law that there is no copyright in
ideas, only in the physical expression thereof. Here one can
imagine disputes about who first told a particular story? There is,
after all, no physical proof required.
A final example of the far-reaching effect the Act will have is
in relation to designs. In normal design law, one has a grace
period of six months within which to file a design application, if
it was put on the market before an application was lodged. The Act
provides for a period of ten years. This means that by the stage
that an application is filed, competing designs could long have
overtaken the particular design, yet the earlier "owner"
can still prevent, after ten years, the use of the design.
In summary, it may be that so-called first world businesses will
be influenced and restricted by the Act. However, there is a clear
possibility that the Act could harm the very people it was designed
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.
It has always been the practice of the Industrial Property Institute of Mozambique to prohibit the refiling of trade marks that have been finally refused, which has posed a serious obstacle to trade mark applicants...
A recent Australian decision on keyword usage of a registered trade mark is in line with decisions in many other countries, including South Africa.
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”
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).