Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 55128 · 4072 · 2026-08-03
42 prohibited marks declared for 2026 Rugby Greatest Rivalry Tour — effective 7 August
Effective from
07 Aug 2026
General Notice 4072 of 2026 declares the 2026 Rugby Greatest Rivalry Tour a 'protected event' under section 15A of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1941, and lists 42 words, logos, emblems, team names and jersey designs as prohibited marks under section 15(1). The prohibitions run from 7 August 2026 to 12 September 2026. Protected-event status is conferred on the South African Rugby Union on a public-interest basis. Proprietors of identical or similar marks already in use are expressly exempted. Unauthorised commercial use of any listed mark during the protected period may attract criminal and civil liability under the Act.
Who is affected
Merchandise manufacturers and retailersSponsors and advertisersEvent organisers and hospitality operatorsSports bodies (SA Rugby, NZ Rugby, franchise teams)Apparel and sportswear brandsIP practitioners advising on ambush-marketing risk What this means for practitioners
Immediately audit all merchandise, advertising, promotional material and hospitality offerings for use of any of the 42 listed marks, words, emblems, logos or jersey designs.
Advise commercial clients that unauthorised use during 7 August – 12 September 2026 may attract criminal and civil liability under the Merchandise Marks Act.
Confirm whether any client holds existing proprietor rights in identical or similar marks, which are expressly preserved by the notice.
Ensure sponsorship and licensing agreements reflect the protected-event restrictions before 7 August 2026.
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact Western Cape High Court, Cape Town · 2026-08-03
Maree and Others v Moravian Church of South Africa and Another
Members of the Elim Overseers Council (EOC) challenged the Moravian Church Provincial Board's disciplinary proceedings, suspension and removal of EOC members, and sought enforcement of a prior court order requiring the Church to pay 50% of rental income to the EOC. The Church's internal appeal procedure required the Provincial Board itself to adjudicate appeals against its own decisions.
The court held: The court held that a voluntary association has no inherent power to discipline members absent express authority in its founding document, applying Yiba v African Gospel Church. The Provincial Board's disciplinary proceedings were ultra vires and procedurally unfair because the chairperson decided the matter without hearing the applicants. The internal appeal procedure was declared unconstitutional under section 34 because it required the Provincial Board to adjudicate appeals against its own decisions, offending the nemo judex in causa sua principle. The contempt application was dismissed — non-compliance stemmed from a genuine interpretive dispute, not mala fides — but the Church was ordered to pay all arrear amounts with interest. The Provincial Board was directed to remedy the unconstitutional appeal process within six months.
Legal impact: Confirms and applies the principle that voluntary associations lack inherent disciplinary power, requiring express founding-document authority. Extends section 34 constitutional scrutiny to internal appeal procedures of voluntary associations, establishing that a procedure where the original decision-maker adjudicates its own appeal is unconstitutional. Any voluntary association — church, club, sports body, or similar organisation — with a comparable self-review appeal structure faces constitutional vulnerability.
Who is affected
Voluntary associations and their governing bodiesReligious organisations (churches, synods, dioceses)Sports bodies and clubsCommunity trusts and mission-station entitiesPractitioners advising on association governance and constitutions What this means for practitioners
Audit founding documents of voluntary-association clients to confirm express disciplinary authority exists; where absent, advise that disciplinary proceedings are ultra vires.
Review internal appeal procedures for any structure where the original decision-maker adjudicates its own appeal — such procedures are now constitutionally vulnerable under section 34.
Advise affected organisations to establish independent appeal mechanisms within a reasonable period, noting the six-month remediation window the court imposed here.
Monitor for any appeal of this judgment that could alter the precedent.