The deception provisions of sections 10(12) and 10(13) of the Trade Marks Act, 194 of 1993

dc.contributor.advisorPapadopoulos, Sylvia
dc.contributor.emailrebonemd@gmail.comen_US
dc.contributor.postgraduateDikotla, Rebone
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-10T13:46:15Z
dc.date.available2023-07-10T13:46:15Z
dc.date.created2023-09
dc.date.issued2022
dc.descriptionMini Dissertation (LLM (Intellectual Property Law))--University of Pretoria, 2022.en_US
dc.description.abstractThis mini dissertation focuses on the provisions of section 10(12) (only regarding inherent deceptiveness) and section 10(13) (regarding deceptiveness through use) of the Trade Marks Act. It provides an interpretation of the first part of section 10(12) as well as an interpretation of section 10(13) and provides clarity and best practices. This has been done by considering the provisions of sections 10(12) and 10(13) of the Trade Marks Act to determine what these sections entail. A desktop literary review was then conducted to find provisions of certain international legislation that were similar to the provisions of sections 10(12) and 10(13) of the South African Trade Marks Act. Sections from the legislation of the United Kingdom and the European Union were found to be relevant in this regard. This paper shows that an inherently deceptive trade mark, in terms of section 10(12) is a trade mark that is, by its nature and without reference to the rights of other trade marks, deceptive. It has also shown that for the purposes of section 10(13), it is only the use of the trade mark itself by its proprietor that must be considered in determining whether or not a trade mark has been used in a manner that has been likely to deceive or cause confusion. The principles and tests applicable to unlawful competition have been considered to determine the test for section 10(12). It has been found that the test for unlawful competition in this context is based on how a substantial number of consumers would perceive a product. If the public would be confused or likely to be confused to believe that the goods have an attribute which they actually do not possess as a result of the way that they have been marketed, then there is likely to be a finding of unlawful competition. This test is relevant and may also be applied to determine whether or not a trade mark is inherently deceptive for purposes of section 10(12). It is also apparent that the test to determine whether a trade mark has been used in a manner which has caused deception or confusion in terms of section 10(13) is whether the trade mark proprietor has, through its own use alone or through use which it has permitted, used a trade mark in a manner that has rendered the message that the trade mark conveys deceptive or confusing.en_US
dc.description.availabilityUnrestricteden_US
dc.description.degreeLLM (Intellectual Property)en_US
dc.description.departmentPrivate Lawen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.citation*en_US
dc.identifier.otherS2023
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2263/91327
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Pretoria
dc.rights© 2023 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria.
dc.subjectTrade Marks Acten_US
dc.subjectInherent Deceptivenessen_US
dc.subjectDeceptivenessen_US
dc.subjectDeceptiveness through useen_US
dc.subjectSection 10en_US
dc.subjectIntellectual propertyen_US
dc.subjectUCTD
dc.titleThe deception provisions of sections 10(12) and 10(13) of the Trade Marks Act, 194 of 1993en_US
dc.typeMini Dissertationen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Dikotla_Deception_2022.pdf
Size:
2.67 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: