‘ANC wasting state resources in its fight for MK name, logo’

The Durban High Court reserved its judgment in the trademark matter between the ANC and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP).

The ANC is forging ahead to claim the exclusive rights to the name (uMkhonto weSizwe) and the logo, with the party arguing that its legal challenge is based on principle and its heritage.

This public battle began in March this year and in April the Durban High Court dismissed the ANC’s case with costs. The ANC on Thursday sought to have the previous court decision set aside.

Advocate Gavin Marriott, for the ANC, told the court it was no coincidence the MKP chose to use the name, claiming it wanted to appear to be linked to the former liberation movement.

MKP lawyer advocate Dali Mpofu argued that the appeal was moot, especially after the May 29 polls. He said it should be heard by the Electoral Court instead. MKP spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said the ANC was wasting state resources by fighting for the name and logo.

“The ANC lost this case in the first round and now they are coming back for the second round. The name of Umkhonto weSizwe is not owned by them (ANC), the name simply means the spear of the nation, so why are they fighting for something that belongs to the nation? There is a reason why they lost in the first place; they will lose again this time around.

“Mbalula and the ANC should be refocusing their energy on something else, not these court cases. Right now they should be concerned about their recent poor performance at the polls, not court cases. These are the kind of things that hurt them during the elections – they lost because of this bitterness,” said Ndhlela.

The ANC said Zuma and the MKP were committing what the ANC considered to be a gross violation of the Trade Marks Act No 194 of 1993. The ANC said it was determined to petition for a court order to stop Zuma’s party from any further unlawful use of the ANC’s trademarks, symbols, and heritage.

The ANC said grounds on which it contended the court erred in reaching the conclusions which it set out include:

• “In section 34(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 194 of 1993, the court, in its judgment, found that the mark used by the MK Party was similar to that registered in the name of the ANC. This is all that section 34(1)(c) requires on this issue. The section does not require any further deception or confusion. Yet, this appears to be the primary basis upon which the cause of action was dismissed.
• “The court’s further finding that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine the passing off and trademark infringement cases is novel in the sense that no high court has ever found that its jurisdiction to determine a trademark infringement suit or passing-off claim has been ousted by statute. For that reason alone, there are reasonable prospects of success in the appeal.”

The Mercury