As discussed in a previous article relating to the Tammy Taylor
trade mark saga, Peet and Melanie Viljoen's continued use of
the Tammy Taylor name, despite the expiration of their license, has
led to legal action and an escalating conflict that highlights key
issues in Intellectual Property ("IP")
law.
What's happened since then?
On 25 April 2024, the court ordered the Viljoens to immediately
cease using the Tammy Taylor trade mark, an order that has
reportedly not been respected, as they are still using the mark,
despite a lawyer having notified them of the infringement. The
Viljoens have filed for an appeal, but their continued actions are
raising serious legal concerns.
As previously mentioned, Peet Viljoen's claims regarding
ownership of the Tammy Taylor trade marks were inconsistent with
the official trade mark register, which clearly shows the US-based
Tammy Taylor Nails Inc. as the rightful owner, not the
Viljoens.
Despite the Viljoens' arguments, including Peet's claim of
a "Provisionally Refused" status for trade marks, the
legal position remains clear: ownership is not determined by
provisional refusals but by assignment and registration, which in
this case, was transferred to the US parent company Tammy Taylor
Nails Inc. long before the dispute escalated. Interestingly, the
trade mark referenced in my post below has since been abandoned,
but some trade marks have been registered in the name of the US
parent company, while trade marks filed by Melany's company
reflect a status of provisionally refused.
The Court's Decision
The court reaffirmed this stance by ordering the Viljoens to cease
using the Tammy Taylor name, highlighting that the Viljoens are
infringing on the registered trademarks and are potentially
damaging the brand's reputation.
What's at stake?
The case is now a critical example of how the Trade Marks Act and
international IP law can protect against unauthorised use of a
brand, even when the dispute spans across borders. Infringing on a
trade mark or a well-known trade mark can result in heavy
penalties, including damages (or a royalty) and the removal of
infringing materials from all platforms.
Key Takeaway
The court's ruling is a crucial reminder of the importance of
respecting intellectual property rights and the legal implications
for businesses that continue using trade marks without proper
authorisation. This is a case to watch closely as it unfolds,
especially for those navigating trade mark ownership and licensing
issues. It will be interesting to review the court papers and the
full decision, especially to see if the Tammy Taylor mark was
recognised as a well-known mark, and whether this played a
significant role in the court's findings.
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.
