Tammy Taylor Nails told to stop using name as US company launches ‘brutal takeover’

There is a new twist in the Tammy Taylor Nails salon saga with the South African owner, Melany Viljoen, accusing the original Tammy Taylor of intending a “brutal takeover of the empire Melany Viljoen built.”

Viljoen made this claim in a statement after The Citizen asked her to comment on letters from Tammy Taylor USA’s lawyer, James McQueen, instructing her to cease and desist from using the Tammy Taylor name as she is no longer a licensee or distributor of products.

McQueen has confirmed that the letters were sent but declined to further comment on the issue.

In an email, McQueen states that, as a result of the termination of the relationship between the parties, Viljoen no longer has a right to use the trademarks as part of her business name or domain name or to otherwise suggest that she is still affiliated with or endorsed by Tammy Taylor Inc. He also claims she is infringing on the Tammy Taylor trademarks.

Viljoen and Tammy Taylor Nails has been in the news over the past year after a number of women complained they did not get the nail salon franchises they paid for, while one franchisee has approached the High Court in Pretoria to provisionally liquidate the company, because it seems unable to pay their money back.

Both Viljoen and Tammy Taylor Nails have denied these allegations.

The National Consumer Commission (NCC) has also issued an investigation directive and is now investigating the company after it received complaints from nine people who claim they did not get a franchise after they paid.

ALSO READ: Franchisee gunning for Tammy Taylor Nails SA’s liquidation

‘We have no connection with the Americans‘

In her statement, Viljoen says Tammy Rae Taylor and her family, who she refers to as “The Americans”, fail to explain the meaning of the word “manufacture”.

“One cannot license something you do not manufacture or did not invent. Melany Viljoen in South Africa developed the concept of the Tammy Taylor franchise. There is no similar salon concept or namesake in the rest of the world,” she says.

She adds that the “general” clause of her franchise agreement states that “we have no connection with the Americans”, but her lawyer omitted to remove any mention of the Americans from the rest of the franchise agreement and Viljoen subsequently terminated her services.

“There seems to be confusion among some reporters that Tammy Taylor is an American franchise group and that the Americans can take it away from South Africa. This is not the case”, Viljoen says.

“The company is owned by Melany Viljoen who first registered the company name at the company registration office (CIPRO) and later followed this up with registering the trademark”.

Viljoen says only the trademark is in dispute and this has no effect on the business model.

“Melany Viljoen and the Americans reached an agreement that in the event of rebranding her empire to Melany’s, there is a condition that the Americans contribute $1 million to rebrand. The Americans seem to have cash flow issues or memory loss.”

Viljoen claims that the trademark shall re-main the property of Melany Viljoen until a South African court rules otherwise. She says the well-being of her franchisees and the quality of the nails her franchisees built remain her only focus.

She says she now buys products in bulk directly from the source and has been doing so for the past three years and that she has enough products to supply the franchisees for at least ten years.

ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails: empty and broken promises

Termination of distribution agreement

Another letter from McQueen refers Viljoen to a part of the distribution agreement that states it can be terminated by written notice of non-renewal at least 60 days prior to the end of any renewal term and that this letter constitutes notice of non-renewal.

Another part of the distribution agreement provides, according to McQueen, that Viljoen must provide a current list of prospects and customers, and their details.

In her answering affidavit to the application for provisional liquidation, Viljoen said the agreement was not cancelled in time and that the women brought the application against the wrong company.

Tammy Taylor Nails states in its answering papers that the franchisees actually contracted with Tammy Taylor Nails Franchising No. 81 (Pty) Ltd, instead of Tammy Taylor Nails SA Franchising (Pty) Ltd.

According to Charl Groenewald, the women’s attorney, a cursory CIPC search seems to show there are about 100 Tammy Taylor nail salons registered in South Africa with Melany Viljoen as sole director.

In court papers, it is alleged that Tammy Taylor Nails “inserted into the franchise agreement the registration of a private company that would be the actual franchisor, as opposed to the franchisor we dealt with and paid” and which “was not even in existence until more than a month later.”

Viljoen also argues that the agreement, which was filed as part of the answering affidavit, contains a clause that reads:

“The franchisee shall have no right to any refund of the franchise fee, or any other sum paid to the franchisor under this agreement.”

Therefore, she believes that the company is not liable to pay any amount.