Takis Biltong attaches rival’s trademarks over unpaid legal bills

Takis Biltong attached 89 SA trademarks of snack foods rival Grupo Bimbo, the Mexi can-registered food giant with annual revenue of $22.8 billion (R407 billion) last week after it failed to pay legal costs accumulated in a nine-year battle over trademark rights.

It took Grupo Bimbo to court to stop it from selling tortilla chips in SA under the brand Takis Fuego.

The Pretoria High Court decided in favour of Takis Biltong in December 2023, overturning an earlier decision by the same court, and ordered that the registration of the trademark Takis Fuego be cancelled on the grounds that the use of the name ‘Takis’ was likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers.

That decision was challenged by Grupo Bimbo in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which again decided in favour of the South African company.

Despite this, Takis Fuego products continue to be sold across the country in violation of the court order.

Grupo Bimbo claimed in its court papers that it was not responsible for Takis-branded products being sold in SA, as these appeared to be imported by third-party suppliers.

ALSO READ: Takis Biltong wins trademark case but sneaky snack food won’t go away

Legal bills

Andrew Papadopoulos, an attorney at Kisch IP, which is representing Takis Biltong, says the Pretoria High Court and the SCA held Grupo Bimbo responsible for the legal bills of the SA company.

“This is not a huge amount of money for a company like Grupo Bimbo, yet when we sent them our letter of demand they replied that they would not pay the full amount, and proposed paying a reduced amount in phases, claiming they had cash flow problems. Even this they did not do.

“This is completely unacceptable, and the reasons given for non-payment are implausible, leaving us no option but to attach 89 trademarks registered by the group in SA. We intend to recoup our costs by selling these trademarks.”

ALSO READ: How to prevent your trademark from becoming the victim of ‘genericide’

Trademarks

Takis Biltong registered its trademarks in May 2007 under the category ‘meat, fish, poultry, and game, preserved meats, meat extracts, sausages’.

The Mexican group applied to register its ‘Takis’ trademarks in 2012 under a different food category. A dispute was declared in 2015.

This is when Takis Biltong claimed that the competing Takis Fuego brand was too similar to its own and would cause confusion in the market. It asked the court to cancel the Mexican trademark.

The Pretoria High Court initially found in favour of the Mexican company in 2018 on the grounds that the two trademarks were not necessarily identical, but this was overturned on appeal by the same court.

That decision was appealed by the Mexican company to the SCA, which decided in favour of the SA company.

The Trade Marks Act does not allow for the registration of marks that are deceptive or “likely to deceive or cause confusion, or are the same as or similar to already registered marks”.

ALSO READ: DJ accuses Milk Stout of intellectual property infringement over African karaoke campaign [VIDEO]  

‘Little respect for rule of law’

Taki Aristides, co-owner of the Takis Group, says Grupo Bimbo waged a nine-year battle in the courts over trademark rights, with the courts deciding in favour of the SA company.

“Takis Biltong is recognised as one of the strongest and most recognisable brands in SA, and for that reason we had to protect our trademarks. Grupo Bimbo dragged us through the courts for nine years and lost and was ordered to pay our legal costs, which it has refused to do.

“This left us no option but to have the sheriff of the High Court attach what properties we could in SA, and that property consists of about 120 trademarks which will be sold to defray our legal costs.

“What is equally concerning is that Takis-branded products sold by Grupo Bimbo are still widely available in SA in violation of the court orders. Grupo Bimbo says it is not responsible for its Takis-branded products sold in SA, but we beg to differ. This is clearly a company that has little respect for the rule of law in SA.”

This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.