SCA decides that the assignment of IP rights does not require Exchange Control approval
23/03/2011
The vexed question of whether the assignment of intellectual property rights owned by a South African to a foreign entity requires Exchange Control approval has now been decided in the negative by our Supreme Court of Appeal.
Regulation 10(1)(c) of the Exchange Control Regulations (“ECR”) provides:
“10(1)(c) No person shall, except with permission granted by the Treasury and in accordance with such conditions as the Treasury may impose –
(a) ….
(b) ….
(c) enter into any transaction whereby capital or any right to capital is directly or indirectly exported from the Republic.”
In the earlier case of
Couve and another v Reddot International (Pty) Limited and others 2004 (6) SA 425 (W), the High Court held that the assignment of a patent application that did not have prior Exchange Control approval offended Regulation 10(1)(c) and was void
ab initio.
In the present case of
Oilwell (Pty) Limited v Protec International Limited and Others (case no. 44835/08), the Court of first instance held that the assignment of a registered trade mark entered into without prior Exchange Control approval did not constitute a contravention of Regulation 10(1)(c) and that such a contravention would not, in any event, render such an assignment agreement void
ab initio. It also held, on the particular facts, that the claim to set aside the assignment had prescribed.
On appeal, in a judgment dated 18 March 2011, the SCA dismissed the appeal and held as follows:
1. IP rights do not constitute capital for purposes of the ECR and, as immovable property, cannot be exported;
2. ECR 10 (1)(c) therefore does not apply to trade mark assignments (or to patents, designs or copyright);
3. such assignments would, in any event, not be void
ab initio;
4. the issue of prescription did not need to be dealt with.
The business impact is that now IP rights owners can freely sell their rights to foreign entities, whereas previously they had to go through a time consuming and expensive exchange control approval process, which had a damping effect on their business activities.
Werina Griffiths
Chris Job
| |
Featured Act
High Court declines to follow Reddot judgment
|
|
Featured Case Law
SWARTLAND – A Double Agent
The case of Groupe LFE (SA) (Pty) Limited v Swartland Winery Limited (467/2009) turned on whether “Swartland” is the name of a wine growing area in the Western Cape, a trade mark under which the Respondent sells its wine (grown in the same area), or, surprisingly, both. |
|
Related People
Chris Job
Partner
Patent and Trade Mark Attorney
Tel: +27 (0) 12 432 6304
Email me
Werina Griffiths
Senior Associate
Trade Mark Attorney
Tel: +27 (0) 12 432 6367
Email me
|
|
|