News
 The Department of Health has announced that its controversial regulations aimed at protecting children from unhealthy food choices will not be implemented until at least 2011. Fortunately, these government regulations are not the only limitations placed on advertisers of so-called “junk food”, whose target market is too young to make informed dietary choices. This article takes a look at the current position. |
||
|
||
 The Honourable Fabricius AJ handed down judgement in the North Gauteng High court, Pretoria, on 31 March 2010. The noting of the judgement lasted only a few minutes with the judge in summary saying that the application was dismissed save for prayer 18 regulation 6(1) which must be read as meaning in addition to what is required by section 24(1)(b) and no order as to costs was given. The order pertaining to costs in effect means that each party has to bear their own costs in the application. |
||
|
||
 Judgment will be delivered at 10am on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. A court has not yet been allocated. |
||
|
||
 Liberia acceded to the Harare Protocol by depositing its instrument of accession on 24 December 2009. Accordingly, as of today i.e. 24 March 2010 it is possible to designate Liberia as a designated state in an ARIPO application. This brings to 16 the number of states which can be designated in an ARIPO patent application. |
||
|
||
 The Minister for Higher Education and State for Scientific Research has published a notice in the Official Gazette No. 24 dated 31/1/2010, stating that applications can now be submitted for national phase entry in Egypt up to 3 months after expiry of the of the 30 month PCT national phase filing deadline, subject to payment of additional fees. |
||
|
||
 The Protection of Information Bill, 2009 (“the Bill”) was published in the Government Gazette on 5 March 2010 for general comment. The Minister of State Security intends to introduce the Bill in the National Assembly in due course. If it comes into effect, the Bill will replace the Protection of Information Act, 1982. |
||
|
||
 Adv HJ de Waal, acting on behalf of the Respondents, closed his argument, followed by Adv S Budlender who dealt with the Applicants’ attack on the following 5 points: the emergency medical tariff, the time period for lodgement of claims, the place of lodgement, the RAF forms, and the appropriate remedy. |
||
|
||
 Adams & Adams is pleased to announce the launch of a new team specialising in anti-counterfeiting matters. While Adams & Adams has, since the inception of the Counterfeit Goods Act, been a leading South Africa law firm in the fight against counterfeit goods and piracy, we realised towards the end of 2009 that a fresh approach was required in this field. Trade mark proprietors are under ever increasing pressure to protect their trade marks in expanding markets and online, but with limited resources. |
||
|
||
|
Adv Ncomisa Mayosi, acting for the Applicants started the proceedings by presenting to the court the legal principles applicable to “consultation” or “debate” that the Minister of Transport failed to adhere to before they imposed the UPFS tariff in respect of medical expenses. She indicated that the principles of consultation and debate can be summarised as general and adequate notice to interested parties, consultation with interested parties and a consideration of the suggestions and views of such interested parties. Counsel put to the court that these principles were not met and from this it may be deduced that the amendment was made in light of a pre-conceived scheme. Counsel took the court through the various meetings that were held by the RAF in anticipation of the imposition of the new tariffs and the arbitrary manner in which these new tariffs were decided upon. |
||
|
||
 On Monday 1 March 2010, the constitutional challenge to the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act, commenced in the North Gauteng High Court, before Fabricius AJ. The proceedings started with applications by the Ministers of Health and Finance, to intervene in the main application. Both applications were dismissed with no order as to costs. |
||
|
||
 On 24 February 2010 and in the North Gauteng High Court, the Minister of Transport brought an Application for Postponement of the main Application between the parties, in which the Law Society of South Africa and ten others are challenging the constitutionality of certain sections of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act. The Minister of Transport cited two reasons why the court should grant a postponement of the main application which is set down for hearing for the period of 1 to 3 March 2010. |
||
|
||
 The North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of Oilwell (Pty) Limited v Protec International Limited and Others (case no. 44835/08) on 17 February 2010, ruling that a trade mark assignment agreement entered into without prior Treasury approval, does not constitute a contravention of Regulation 10(1)(c) of the Exchange Control Regulations, 1961, and that a contravention of Regulation 10(1)(c) would, in any event, not render such an assignment agreement null and void, ab initio. The applicant, a South African company, was previously the proprietor of various trade mark registrations for the trade mark PROTEC in South Africa and abroad. On 4 July 1998, an assignment agreement was entered into between, inter alia, it and the first respondent, by which the PROTEC trade mark registrations were assigned to the latter. |
||
|
||
 The owner of an International Trade Mark Registration designating Mozambique must bear in mind that the Industrial Property Code of Mozambique requires filing of a Declaration of Intention to Use (DIU) every five years. The five-year periods are calculated as follows: • For an International Registration designating Mozambique at the time of application for registration, the five years will run from the application date of the International Registration (e.g. Application date of International Registration 01 January 2000 – First DIU due 01 January 2005. |
||
|
||
 With the South African competition authorities dishing out staggering fines, the latest being Pioneer Foods, which were fined by the Competition Tribunal in the amount of just under R200 million, other African countries are gearing up to enforce competition law in their respective countries. |
||
|
||
 Abusive domain name registrations, ambush marketing, trade mark infringement and passing-off – know your rights, or the lovebirds may get it. |
||
|
||
|
The firm practises directly in several Southern African countries and through long-established associates in others.
