- in Africa
- in Africa
- in Africa
- with readers working within the Property industries
- within International Law, Law Department Performance and Consumer Protection topic(s)
The nail world has once again collided with Intellectual Property ("IP") and it is getting spicier than a fresh acrylic set.
First, a quick recap
Peet and Melany Viljoen once operated Tammy Taylor South Africa under a licence from Tammy Taylor Nails Incorporated in the US. As licensees, they were authorised to use the Tammy Taylor brand only for as long as the licence remained in force - a fundamental principle in trade mark law. That relationship ended, but the Viljoens reportedly continued to trade under the brand.
The U.S. judgment – Ownership matters
In mid-2025, the U.S. District Court (Southern District of California) ruled that the Viljoens:
- Infringed Tammy Taylor's registered trade marks
- Breached the license agreement
- Must pay ZAR71 million in statutory damages
- Must stop all use of Tammy Taylor names/logos/domains
- Must remove every reference to the brand from stores and social media
No defence was seemingly filed, and the judgment was granted by default. Textbook trade mark enforcement usually follows once a licence is terminated, as all authorisation to use the brand falls away. Continued use = infringement.
Plot twist: The Viljoens now sue Tammy Taylor
The Viljoens now claim their original licence was "illegal" and argue that: You cannot license a trade mark if you do not manufacture the goods, and they are suing Tammy Taylor for USD200 million (ZAR3.4 billion).
But here's the trade mark reality:
- A trade mark is not a manufacturing certificate.
- It is a badge of origin indicating that goods/services are supplied under the control of the trade mark owner.
- Nike, Mercedes, Apple - none need to manufacture their own goods to own or license their trade marks.
Some incorrect claims made publicly by the Viljoens:
"You cannot license something you don't manufacture." False. Licensing relies on control, not manufacturing.
"Anyone can use the name 'Mercedes', just not the logo." False. Word marks are trade marks too - Mercedes owns the word.
"If Tammy Taylor didn't register in South Africa first, she can't claim ownership." Misleading. The register shows various SA marks in the name of Tammy Taylor Inc., and any prior assignments or licence terms control ownership rights. Exported reputation of well-known marks can also offer protection.
Where this appears to be heading
The courts in the US and South Africa will be tasked to determine:
- Who owns the relevant trade marks in SA
- Whether the Viljoens' ongoing use creates confusion
- Damages for continued infringement
As more filings land, expect trade mark law to decide the outcome.
Takeaway for businesses
If you license a brand:
- Know what you own
- Know what you are borrowing
- Stop using the brand immediately when the licence ends
Otherwise, the bill may make your gel polish cure early.
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.
