Latest news with #TrademarksAct
The Citizen
26-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Judge orders Viljoens to immediately stop using Tammy Taylor trademark
Despite a court order and a lawsuit from the real Tammy Taylor over the unauthorised use of her name, the Viljoens continue to use it. When a judge recently ordered Peet and Melany Viljoen to immediately stop using the Tammy Taylor trademark, it was just another shot over the bow for the nail franchise after the US owner already took steps to sue them for $100 million for using her trademark after their license expired. Judge Joseph Raulinga ordered Tammy Taylor Global Franchising, as well as the Viljoens to 'immediately cease representing or holding out to the public that they have the legal authority and right to sell Tammy Taylor nail franchises in South Africa, without authorisation under the Trademarks Act' or any nail salon that incorporates or uses the Tammy Taylor name or trademarks. He ordered them to remove all references to 'Tammy Taylor' from their websites, stationery, forms, marketing material, salon products and social media platforms within 30 days from the date of the order, which was on 25 April. However, on 25 May they still used the Tammy Taylor name, after their lawyer informed the lawyer of the franchisee who sued them to get her money back, Lebohang Hlathuka, that they will appeal the judgment. ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Global Franchising gets a big hiding in South African high court Real Tammy Taylor sues Viljoens for $100 million over name use The real Tammy Taylor, founder and owner of Tammy Taylor Nails in the US, said in April last year that she is suing Melany and Peet Viljoen for $100 million and filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, accusing her former licensees of continuing to use her trademarks after the licence ended. She also uploaded a video on her Instagram account the week before in which she said the Viljoens are illegally using her name to sell franchises, counterfeiting and selling her products, and using her logos and trademarks on all their social media platforms. She also said that the Viljoens threatened, harassed, and stalked her. In the video she alleged that 'from 2017 to 2022 Tammy Taylor, Inc. granted the Viljoen's the limited right to sell its nail products in Australia and Africa' but that this 'was terminated in 2022' and 'from 2018 to 2022, granted the Viljoen's the limited right to develop Tammy Taylor salons in Africa', but that this 'was terminated in 2021'. Melany Viljoen responded with three videos on TikTok, claiming that she and Peet 'own the legitimate registration and ownership of the Tammy Taylor name in South Africa'. ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails told to stop using name as US company launches 'brutal takeover' Viljoens do not own the Tammy Taylor trademark, court hears The alleged unauthorised use of the real Tammy Taylor's name became part of Hlathuka's case after her legal team asked in their application for an order that the Viljoens be ordered to stop using the trademark because they do not own it. According to Hlathuka's court papers, the trademark register confirms that Tammy Taylor Inc., a California corporation in Santa Ana, is the registered owner of the Tammy Taylor South Africa trademark. Melany Viljoen also tried in February 2023 to register Tammy Taylor Global Franchising as a trademark and according to Hlathuka's court papers, the application will probably be refused because the Trademark Act provides that a mark must not be registered if it is identical to a registered trademark in the name of a different owner or if it is so similar to the registered one that it will deceive or cause confusion, unless the owner consents to it. ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails: Did the Viljoens scam South African franchisees? Who owns the trademark? Experts weigh in Nishaat Slamdien, associate and John Foster, partner at law firm Spoor & Fisher, wrote in May last year that trademarks are territorial in nature and trademark rights are limited to the country where they have been used and/or registered, although there is an exception for trademarks found to be well-known. They say the Trademarks Act allows owners of well-known trademarks to prevent their use and registration in South Africa that are identical or are an imitation or translation of the well-known mark and are intended for use or registered regarding goods or services that the mark is well-known for and where the use is likely to cause confusion or deception. 'If the well-known trademark is also registered in South Africa, the owner of that mark can prevent its use if the use would be likely to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the well-known mark, even when there is no likelihood of confusion or deception.' Slamdien and Foster say it appears that the trademark was registered in South Africa, as a search of the Trademarks Register shows that Tammy Taylor, Inc is the current owner of an application for registration and registrations for the trademark in South Africa. ALSO READ: Real Tammy Taylor owns her trademark, not the Viljoens – expert Melany Viljoen's trademark application assigned to real Tammy Taylor They point out that it seems that in 2016, Justsmart Mobile (Pty) Ltd, with Melany Viljoen as the sole director, sought to register the Tammy Taylor South Africa logo, but this application was subsequently assigned to Tammy Taylor US. In addition, they point out that Peet Viljoen said in a video on Instagram that 'transfer to the USA was denied', but that the Trademark Register revealed this was not the case. 'As the word mark was originally used under licence from the US company, it is questionable whether Justsmart had a good faith claim to ownership of the logos. 'As such, Justsmart might have been compelled to assign the applications for these logos to the US company.' Slamdien and Foster say that, from an intellectual property perspective, the owner of a registered trademark can rely on the Trademarks Act to prevent the unauthorised use of a trademark if it is likely to cause deception or confusion. ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails: empty and broken promises What does this mean for the Viljoens? 'What this means for the Viljoens is that Tammy Taylor Inc. may be able to rely on its trademark registrations to prevent the Viljoens' use of it in South Africa.' Therefore, they say, Tammy Taylor Inc. would be able to:
IOL News
13-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Gqeberha shop manager fined R87,000 for selling counterfeit Apple accessories
Apple Logo Manager of HOCO (Pty) Ltd in Gqeberha, was fined R87 000 by the Regional Court for selling counterfeit Apple accessories. Image: Nicholas Kamm / AFP The manager of a Gqeberha cellphone accessories shop has been slapped with an R87,000 fine after admitting to selling counterfeit Apple products, following a successful prosecution by the Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit. Harrikumar Patel, who managed HOCO (Pty) Ltd operating from Shop 32 in Walmer Park Shopping Centre, pleaded guilty to charges under the Counterfeit Goods Act and the Trademarks Act. The Gqeberha Regional Court confirmed his conviction after a lawful search of the store on March 28 uncovered 145 counterfeit Apple-branded items, including iPhone covers, charging cables, power banks, car chargers, and port adapters. National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Regional Spokesperson Luxolo Tyali said the fake products infringed on the intellectual property rights of Apple Inc., a US-based company. The complaint was lodged by Apple Inc., represented in South Africa by attorney Jarred West from Spoor & Fisher in Centurion. 'The investigation revealed that the imported goods bore imitation trademarks likely to mislead consumers into believing the products were genuine Apple merchandise,' Tyali said. Regional Prosecutor Shumeez September-Moodley, who led the case, stressed the importance of protecting consumers and intellectual property holders from the harms associated with counterfeit products. Barry Madolo, Eastern Cape Director of Public Prosecutions, welcomed the ruling stating that this outcome reinforces the commitment of the NPA and its partners to combat intellectual property crime and protect legitimate businesses and consumers from the dangers of counterfeit goods, as well as prevent further detriment to the economy of the country. Tyali said the case serves as a warning to those involved in counterfeiting. 'This case sends a clear message that trademark infringement, and counterfeiting will not be tolerated in the Eastern Cape or anywhere in South Africa,' he said. IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
Fashion Network
02-05-2025
- Business
- Fashion Network
Reliance Industries secures legal victory in 'Vimal' trademark case
Reliance Industries Limited has secured a legal win in a trademark infringement case involving the 'Vimal' brand, with the Gujarat High Court upholding a previous order restraining Ludhiana-based Jaipal Gaba and his firm Mack Hosiery from using the mark on apparel. The case originated from a 2021 lawsuit filed by Reliance Industries Limited, which claimed exclusive rights to the 'Vimal' trademark, used by the company since 1967 and registered under Class 24 for textiles, the business announced in a press release. RIL argued that Gaba's use of the name on garments such as t-shirts and shirts, along with references to 'Reliance,' amounted to trademark infringement and misled consumers. The Commercial Court in Ahmedabad had earlier barred Gaba and Mack Hosiery from using the names 'Vimal,' 'Vimal Jonney,' and 'Mack Vimal.' Gaba contested the jurisdiction of the court, stating that his rights were derived from Milap Hosiery's registration of 'Vimal' under Class 25 in 1976 and an assignment deed dated 1986. However, the High Court noted that both parties' products are sold through similar retail channels, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. It recognised RIL as the prior user of the mark and stated, 'The plaintiff's case for passing off under Section 135 read with Section 27(2) of the Trademarks Act is prima facie made out.'The decision reinforces RIL's longstanding rights over the 'Vimal' trademark across both apparel and textile categories.
![[UPDATED] Cops bust syndicate selling fake engine oil](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.nst.com.my%2Fimages%2Farticles%2Ffakeoils_1745939072.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[UPDATED] Cops bust syndicate selling fake engine oil](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.nst.com.my%2Fassets%2FNST-Logo%402x.png%3Fid%3Db37a17055cb1ffea01f5&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
New Straits Times
29-04-2025
- New Straits Times
[UPDATED] Cops bust syndicate selling fake engine oil
PETALING JAYA: Federal police have crippled a syndicate that had been packaging and selling fake engine oil — including counterfeit products of well-known local and Japanese brands — for over three years. Millions of ringgit worth of counterfeit engine oil and processing equipment were seized during raids on three shoplots in Ara Damansara and Kepong today. The raids followed nearly two months of intelligence gathering and surveillance by the Wildlife Crime Bureau/Special Investigation and Intelligence (WCB/PSK). Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohammad Azlin Sadari, head of the WCB/PSK, told the New Straits Times that the operation, which began around 11.30am, was led by Principal Assistant Director (Special Investigation/Intelligence) Assistant Commissioner Zulkarnain Samsudin. The team, comprising WCB/PSK personnel and officers from the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry, found that the syndicate had divided operations across the three premises. "One shoplot in Ara Damansara was used to store empty engine oil bottles, while another nearby was used to process and bottle the fake oil," Azlin said. "The Kepong premises served as a warehouse for the finished products, which were then distributed to spare part shops. We believe some were also sold online." Thirteen individuals — six locals and seven foreigners — were arrested in the raids. "Our team is still on-site calculating the total value of the seized items, which we estimate to be in the millions. We are also investigating the source of the engine oil used," he said. The case is being investigated under Section 102(1)(c) of the Trademarks Act and Section 5 of the Trade Descriptions Act.
