No one, or at least no one I know of, likes giving hard-earned money to the taxman. And we like the process even less when we know that so much of it is either badly applied by the various government departments or, worse, stolen. Cavorting cabinet ministers on overseas junkets, others who throw our money at inflated hotel bills without a by-your-leave or an apology have become standard fare. If this isn't sufficient, the powers given to the collector of taxes are frankly draconian. They come in the form of additional taxes or monster penalties. The tax authorities may even resort to tossing errant taxpayers into jail – though what good that does is difficult to comprehend.
During the latter part of 2009, the Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan, released the Draft Tax Administration Bill (draft TAB) for public comment. The purpose of the draft TAB is to remove various administrative provisions contained in the various fiscal statutes in South Africa and place them into a single piece of legislation to ensure that the administrative provisions of the fiscal statutes of this country are harmonised.
In two unrelated mergers, the Competition Tribunal recently made decisions regarding changes from joint to sole control that certainly caught the attention of the competition law fraternity. This was not because they are necessarily ground breaking, but because they appear to be in contrast to previous decisions by the Tribunal on the subject.
The Competition Commission plays an extremely important role in protecting the South African public from companies that engage in anti-competitive conduct by investigating and prosecuting firms for contraventions of the Competition Act before the Competition Tribunal.
By the time you read this, the 2010 FIFA World Cup (or whatever its official name really is) will probably be under way, in fact it may even be over. And you may be thinking this: what on earth happened in South Africa during the years and months leading up to the event? Did some sort of collective madness take over? If so, will sanity ever return?
Ss43(2) of the Companies Act, 1973 (current Act) provides for the registration of a name as a defensive name and for the renewal of the registration. Defensive names are advantageous in that they block the company and close corporation register and effectively prevent third parties from registering companies or close corporations with identical or confusingly similar names.
Unregistered trademarks continue to be governed by common law as opposed to registered trademarks, which are regulated by statute.
What does the word 'pending' really mean in the context of patent amendment applications? This was the question Judge Claassen, sitting as the Commissioner of Patents, faced in Sanofi Aventis and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited and Another (2000/6386)  ZACCP 2.
Popular rap artist Jay-Z and a business partner are suing Boston Red Sox star baseball player, David Ortiz, for naming his Santo Domingo nightclub Forty- Forty. According to Jay-Z, this name is likely to cause confusion with his own 40/40 chain of nightclubs.
The Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Act of 2008, otherwise known as the IPR Act and its proposed Regulations, have been shrouded in much controversy. The dissidents of the IPR Act are of opinion that it, and its draft Regulations, may well stifle innovation and private investment through overzealous protection and commercialisation of intellectual property generated from publicly financed research.