The word counterfeit is often used in the context of trade
marks. How often do you hear someone say this: ‘I’m not
going to buy this suspiciously cheap ‘‘name”
product from this market trader, it’s clearly a counterfeit,
by buying it I’ll be encouraging illegal behaviour, something
that will not only give me sleepless nights but will also set a bad
example to my fellow South Africans, far better to pay a much
higher price for the real thing, thereby ensuring that the
multinational that manufactures it continues to make super profits,
pay massive executive bonuses, and keep all its poorly paid Asian
workers in employment’?
But what is a counterfeit? Is it an exact or near-exact
imitation of another product, or does it have a wider meaning? The
question’s important because we have in this country an act
called the Counterfeit Goods Act – a rather pernicious piece
of legislation that allows holders of IP rights to enlist the aid
of the authorities (the police, of course, have nothing better to
do than get involved in disputes about brand names!) to seize goods
that are counterfeit. The Act’s been around since 1997,
but it’s had surprisingly little scrutiny from the courts. So
the decision that was handed down on 19 November 2010 by the Appeal
Court in a case involving Puma knock-offs – Puma AG v Rampar
– is important.
The judgment was written by our leading IP judge, Louis Harms,
and it confirms what has been blatantly obvious for some time -
that laws have little to do with logical thought or clear
expression. So, although logic and dictionaries may suggest that a
counterfeit is an exact or near-exact imitation of another product,
the Act makes it quite clear that cloning is not required. Au
contraire, something can be counterfeit even if the manufacturer of
the copied product hasn’t ever manufactured goods of that
type, provided that they are covered by the manufacturer’s
trade mark registration. So, for example, if you copy the Puma
trade mark but apply it to a type of shoe that Puma doesn’t
even make, it’s still a counterfeit. Or, to use a nice
example from the world of money mentioned by the judge – it
would be no defence to say that the R300 note you’ve proudly
produced isn’t a counterfeit because there isn’t a real
R300 note (the defence of insanity might, however, still be
So what is required for something to be counterfeit? Well the
test is similar to the test for trade mark infringement, but not
quite the same. A trade mark is infringed if there is a likelihood
of confusion between the products, but the product is only a
counterfeit if it was ‘calculated’ to confuse.
Intention is the added factor. In most cases, that won’t be
too difficult to prove.
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...
As reported in the market updates section of this newsletter, the UAE Ministry of Economy recently reviewed the fees charged by its various departments, including the Trade Mark, Patent and Copyright Office.
Managers responsible for ensuring that an organisation’s intellectual property rights are protected often believe that the organisation automatically owns all intellectual property rights arising from the work of its employees.
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).