A Tammy Taylor Nails store. Picture for illustration.
The real Tammy Taylor owns her trademark even in South Africa, an intellectual property attorney who investigated the ownership of the trademark says. Taylor is now suing Melany and Peet Viljoen for $100 million for damages to her name and brand.
Melany Viljoen responded to Taylor’s announcement of the law suit in a video on Instagram by posting her own video. She insists in the video that they hold the legitimate registration and ownership of the Tammy Taylor name in South Africa.
Karel Bredenkamp, from Bredenkamp Intellectual Property Attorneys, decided to set the record straight considering the confusion and misinformation regarding the Tammy Taylor intellectual property, specifically the trademarks, by using information on the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) website. The CIPC registers trademarks in South Africa.
He says this stylised trademark (a trademark consisting of stylised words and/or a logo and/or a specific font), is registered in the name of Tammy Taylor Inc., a company registered in the US.
“Justsmart Mobile (Pty) Limited first sought registration of this trademark in June 2016, with Melany Juanita Viljoen as its sole director (Justsmart went through several name changes. Its current name is Royalty Recovery),” Bredenkamp says.
According to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) records, Justsmart assigned all rights in and to this trademark to Tammy Taylor US and therefore, the US company is the current proprietor of this registered trademark, he says.
ALSO READ: VIDEO: Tammy Taylor sues Melany and Peet Viljoen for $100 million
According to Bredenkamp, Justsmart initially filed this stylised trademark in a trademark application:
However, Bredenkamp says, all rights in and to this trademark application were assigned from Justsmart to Tammy Taylor US, who is now the sole applicant for this trademark’s registration.
“The registrar of trademarks provisionally refused the trademark application, but assuming the current applicant, Tammy Taylor US, is interested to apply, they could address the registrar’s objections and hopefully have the trademark application granted and registered.”
He points out that the assignment of the application from Justsmart to Tammy Taylor US was not declined. Tammy Taylor US is the single applicant and the assignment has been recorded. It is the registration of this trademark that was provisionally refused.
Bredenkamp says Tammy Taylor US is also the registered proprietor of these registered trademarks:
He says this registered trademark consisting of the words “Tammy Taylor” in block letters provides the broadest protection possible. The first two trademarks and the pending trademark application were filed in classes 3, 35 and 44 that include cosmetics, perfumes, soaps, business services, professional services and beauty care.
ALSO READ: WATCH: Real Tammy Taylor says Peet and Melany Viljoen stole her identity
Bredenkamp says the US company cancelled a master licence granted under their intellectual property, including their trademarks to Peet and Melany Viljoen. This means that the Viljoens are no longer authorised to use the trademarks or any trademark that is confusingly similar to the Tammy Taylor trademarks.
An anonymous source last year provided letters from Tammy Taylor US’s lawyer, James McQueen, instructing Viljoen to cease and desist from using the Tammy Taylor name as she is no longer a licensee or distributor of products. McQueen confirmed that the letters were sent but declined to further comment on the issue.
“Peet and Melany Viljoen are also not authorised to grant or maintain sublicenses/franchises using the Tammy Taylor trademarks. This means that the franchisees/sublicensees are similarly no longer authorised to use the trademarks or any trademark that is confusingly similar to the Tammy Taylor US trademarks.”
In addition, Bredenkamp says, nobody, including Peet and Mel Viljoen, may sell any Tammy Taylor trademarked products unless it is the original, authorised product to which the US company itself applied any of its trademarks.
“Therefore, they may only sell original products that originated from Tammy Taylor.”
ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails told to stop using name as US company launches ‘brutal takeover’
He says, for example, if you buy a can of Coca-Cola, you may resell it to someone else.
“However, you may not obtain Coca-Cola’s soft drink, fill your own cans and apply the Coca-Cola trademark to them. A trademark’s function is to indicate origin. Your filled and labelled “Coca-Cola” cans do not originate from Coca-Cola, they come from you. You should label the cans with your own name.”
Another example is that if a Mr A obtains sekelbos wood (a small tree that makes for excellent firewood) from a farmer, then bundles the wood and marks the bundles as “Mr A’s” and distributes the bundled and marked firewood, a Mr B, who also obtains sekelbos from the same farmer, cannot label his bundles “Mr A’s”, as Mr B’s bundles do not originate from Mr A. The product (bundled firewood) for sale by Mr B, is offered for sale by him and not Mr A.
“Therefore, if Peet Viljoen obtains the same product from the same manufacturer (as he alleges), he cannot package/bottle/pot the product and label it with any Tammy Taylor trademark.”
Does it matter that Taylor filed the law suit in the US while the Viljoens are in South Africa? Bredenkamp says if the ViljJoens have assets in the US, a US judgment can be executed against those assets.
“If not, the US judgment would have to be confirmed by a South African court before it can be executed in South Africa. This is not always a simple process. If there are no assets in the US, it would probably be a good idea to launch proceedings in South Africa.”
The Viljoens did not respond to a request to comment on Bredenkamp’s comments. If they do decide to comment, it will be added.
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
