Proof that even IP lawyers need IP lawyers

This week we were reminded of just how easily trade mark infringement can occur online. This time, somewhat ironically, it was our own brand that needed protecting.

Lawyers need IP lawyers Article_inline When searching for Adams & Adams, another IP firm appeared in the sponsored Google results. That, in itself, is not unusual. As the largest IP firm in our market, competitors will sometimes bid on our name as a keyword. The commercial advantage is obvious: it allows the competitor’s advertisement to appear alongside (or even above) us in search results and capture the attention of users already looking for our services.

The legal position on this was clarified in Cochrane Steel Products v M-Systems Group some years ago. In that case, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the mere bidding on a competitor’s trade mark as a Google Ads keyword is not, in itself, unlawful. Admittedly, that case did not involve a registered trade mark, but it was in line with EU decisions on this point. The SCA found that the key question was whether the advertisement itself gives rise to deception or confusion. Where the competitor’s mark is used only in the background as a trigger (and not in the visible advertisement), and the ad clearly identifies the advertiser, the court found that this is simply a form of healthy competition, and that today’s internet savvy consumers would know that they were merely being offered alternatives. They would not be confused or misled.

The difference here, however, was that our name, Adams & Adams, which is also a registered trade mark, was used within the competitor’s advertisement itself, under its own name.

That crosses the line.

Using another party’s registered trade mark in your advertising in a way that suggests association or endorsement is a very different proposition and will typically amount to trade mark infringement.

The slightly amusing part is that this came from within the IP community itself. After experiencing firsthand some of the outrage that our clients feel when their brand is misused, the matter was fortunately solved through a phone call to the competitor who had no idea that their agency had gone down this road. They undertook to rectify the situation immediately.

As IP attorneys, we spend our days advising clients on where the legal boundaries lie. Occasionally, it seems, we also provide a live demonstration of how easy it is to step over them.

Kelly Thompson
Partner | Trade Mark Practitioner
View Related Blogs
View All
news

There’s no smoke without combustibles

Following the adoption of the motion of desirability in June this year, the Portfolio Committee on Health commenced its section-by-section deliberations on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery...

Advertising LawIntellectual PropertyKim RampersadhNicole Haworth​Regulatory LawTrade Marks
news

Respecting the Lens, Part 2: Why "I Didn't Know I Needed Permission" Is Not a Copyright Defence

Last year, in our article Respecting the Lens: Copyright Infringement and the Rights of Photographers in South Africa, we addressed a common misconception encountered in copyright enforcement matters:...

CopyrightDaniëlle van DeventerDarren OlivierIntellectual PropertyLita Miti-QamataMandla NgidiMaureen Kiugu (née Makoko)
news

The Trade Mark That Refused to Die: Deadwood or Zombie?

The Case of Altron Ltd v Tracker (Pty) Ltd Pretoria High Court, 2026 A trade mark unused for almost ten years might ordinarily be destined for removal. Yet in Altron v Tracker, residual reputation hel...

Amina SulimanBrandingIntellectual PropertyTrade Marks