This is the third instalment of this column I have written this year dealing with the protection of South African intellectual property. Following the publication of a notice prohibiting the use of the word ‘rooibos’ (and its derivatives) in the Government Gazette of July 12 in terms of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1941, a notice from Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies prohibiting the use of the words ‘honeybush’, ‘heuningbos’, ‘honeybush tea’ and ‘heuningbos tee’ appeared in the Government Gazette of August 16. (Honeybush is part of South Africa’s unique fynbos biome, of which there are 23 known species. The bushes grow wild in the Western and Eastern Cape provinces.)

This notice follows a request from the South African Honeybush Tea Association (SAHTA) for a prohibition on the use of these words in connection with any trade, business, profession or occupation, or in connection with a trademark, mark or trade description applied to goods other than by SAHTA members or any other party in accordance with the Rules of Use for Honeybush, which was published as an annexure to the notice.

Interested persons are invited to submit their comments to the Registrar of Trade Marks by no later than September 16.

According to the annexure, the name Honeybush can only be used to refer to the dry product, infusion or extract that is 100% pure Honeybush – derived from Cyclopia spp, and which has been cultivated or wild-harvested in the geographic areas described in the application.

Honeybush may be blended with teas, infusions and other products, whether or not for human consumption. The labelling of such products must conform with the rules regarding the labelling of products in the territory where the product is marketed.

As a guideline, the SAHTA is of the view that, for a product to carry the product designation Honeybush, the final product must contain 100% Cyclopia spp or at least adhere to the statutory standard.

If the produdct is a Honeybush blended tea or infusion, Honeybush can be used as the main descriptor (Honeybush<<other product>>) provided that Honeybush is the main ingredient, the extract percentages appear on the label/ packing and the final product must still be recognisable as Honeybush, as characterised in the description of the product.

If the product is a blended tea or infusion, it can be called ‘<<other product>> and Honeybush blend’ as descriptor, but only if it contains Honeybush and on conditions that Honeybush provides a distinctive character to the product, the exact percentage of the Honeybush content appears on the label/packaging and the product with the highest percentage appears first on the label.

Honeybush flavoured tea or infusions with liquid flavours (flavoured Honeybush) can be called ‘Honeybush <<liquid flavourant>>’ on the conditions that Honeybush is the main ingredient (after water), the exact percentage of Honeybush content appears on the label/packaging and the final product must still be recognisable as Honeybush, as characterised in the description of the product.

Following guidance from the SAHTA, other products (for instance extracts, soaps, cream, yoghurts and liquor, besides others) may be called ‘Honeybush <<other product>>’ only if they contain Honeybush and on the conditions that Honeybush (or Cyclopia spp) appears on the list of ingredients and it can be proved that Honeybush adds to the characteristics of the product.

Wine Draft Tariff Amendment
On August 12, the South African Revenue Service (Sars) published draft tariff amendments to the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act, proposing that the alcoholic strength of wine, classifiable under tariff subheading 2204.21.41, 2204.29.41, 2205.10.21 and 2205.90.21 be lowered from 6.5% to 4.5% by volume in order to align it with the amendments to the Liquor Product Act, 1989.

The draft tariff amendment relates to tariff subheadings 2204.21.41, 2204.29.41, 2205.10.21 and 2205.90.21 in Schedule No 1, Part 1, of the Act; tariff items 104.15.03, 104.15.07, 104.16.03 and 104.16.09 in Schedule No 1, Part 2A, of the Act; and rebate items 620.01/104.15.03/02.10, 620.01/104.15.07/06.01, 620.02/104.16.03/02.01, 620.02/104.16.09.06.01, 620.04/104.15.03/02.01, 620.04/104.15.07/06.01, 620.05/104.16.03/02.01, 620.05/104.16.09/06.01, 620.07/104.15.07, 620.08/104.16.09 and 620.11/104.15.07/01.01 in Schedule No 6, Part 1, of the Act.
Comments were due by no later than August 26.

Precertification Bills
On August 15, Sars released its precertification draft Customs Duty Bill (239 pages) and draft Customs Control Bill (786 pages) for information purposes only.

Rule 19.08(d) Amendment
On August 16, Sars informed of the amendment of Rule 19.08(d) of the Customs and Excise Act, which deleted the definition of ‘maturation and the word ‘and’ thereafter. The draft amendment was published for comment on May 15.

Draft Warehouse Licensing Rule
On August 16, Sars published its draft rule amendment to the Customs and Excise Act relating to the substitution of Form DA 185.4B1 (Client Type 4B1: Licensing of Special Manufacturing Warehouses) to make separate provision for the licensing specifically for the manufacturing of vermouth and other fermented beverages and fruit stripped of its character as indicated in Note 4 of Chapter 22 in Schedule No 1, Part 1, of the Act. Comment was due by August 23.