Uthingo, operator of the South African national lottery, Lotto, has issued the administrator of local hacking site 2600.co.za with a "cease and desist" letter.
The administrator of the site, known as LowVoltage, says the site is an expression of "free speech" and he has no plans to shut it down.
In its letter to 2600.co.za, Uthingo asserts that reference to "National Robbery" and "Tata `ma Chance, tata `ma f***-all" in the Web site constitute infringement of the trademarks "National Lottery" and "Tata ma Chance, Tata ma Millions".
It demands that the owners of the site "immediately cease any use of the offending slogans in your Web site and furnish us with a written undertaking to that effect within seven days from date of receipt hereof".
The sections of the site that are in contention are two pages that break down the expenses of the National Lottery and suggest that money is not being adequately distributed by the organiser.
On the site LowVoltage writes: "A few more charities have been paid out recently, but it`s still not good enough. Ticket sales are still too high. Do not succumb to the promises made by the National Lottery - they must show drastic action and complete transparency before they can expect us to support the National Lottery."
On a second page the site suggests actions that can be taken by the public to interrupt the sales of Lotto tickets.
LowVoltage says he has consulted a lawyer and as far as he is concerned, the claim of trademark infringement is without grounds. He says what is at stake is freedom of speech and he has no intention of taking down the offending pages. "The site will remain," he says.
"It seems as though Uthingo are not happy with the site and want it to be removed. However, our constitutional right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media protect us, so they can`t directly shut it down.
"The next best option for them is to try and attack through trademark issues. They can`t attack our speech, so they attack the manner in which we express it.... I bet they were hoping we`d just delete the lottery boycott pages when sent a lawyer`s letter. The fact that they are making such a big deal of this means we have succeeded in hitting them where it hurts."
A legal source says that for something to constitute trademark infringement, there has to be an infringement in the course of trade as well as the creation of confusion. It is permissible to use existing trademarks in the criticism of an organisation or person - this is fair comment. What is not permissible is to "draw attention to your comment by creating confusion".
Uthingo could not be reached for comment this morning.
Share