Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and Another

Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd was the holder of a South African patent which lapsed due to its failure to pay prescribed renewal fees timeously. Trustco applied for restoration of the patent under s 47(1) of the Patents Act 57 of 1978. The restoration application was advertised, and Vodacom (Pty) Ltd opposed it. In terms of regulation 83 of the Patent Regulations, Trustco was required to file a counterstatement within two months of Vodacom’s notice of opposition. Trustco failed to do so within the prescribed period but applied to the Registrar of Patents for an extension of time shortly after the expiry. The Registrar granted the extension. Vodacom appealed to the Commissioner of Patents (High Court), which set aside the Registrar’s decision and held that the application was deemed abandoned. Trustco then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The decision of the Gauteng Division of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Vodacom’s appeal against the Registrar’s decision to grant Trustco an extension of time.

This case authoritatively clarifies the scope of the Registrar of Patents’ power to extend time periods under s 16(2) of the Patents Act. It confirms that deeming provisions in the Patent Regulations do not automatically curtail statutory discretionary powers, reinforcing principles of statutory hierarchy and remedial interpretation in South African patent law.