Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC and Another (206/98) [2000] ZASCA 192; 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA) (29 September 2000)

Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC and Another (206/98) [2000] ZASCA 192; 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA) (29 September 2000)

The court held that the respondents' use of 'Power House' on clothing does not infringe the appellant's registered trade marks under sections 34(1)(a) or (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1993. The marks, when considered as a whole, do not closely resemble each other, and the average consumer would not be confused or deceived into believing that the respondents' clothing is associated with the appellant. The word 'Power' is common in trade mark registrations for clothing, and its use in combination with 'House' sufficiently distinguishes the respondents' mark. Furthermore, the court found that the requirements for dilution under section 34(1)(c) were not met, as the similarity between the marks...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 192
Parties
Appellant: Bata Limited; Respondent: Face Fashions CC; Respondent: Michael Terrence Gormley
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Case Number
206/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Opposed Application; Judgment Delivered After Agreement to Be Bound by Draft Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Smalberger, Vivier, Nienaber, Harms, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Likelihood of Confusion, Dilution of Trade Mark, Distinctive Character, Passing Off
Intellectual Property Commercial and Corporate Trade Mark Infringement Likelihood of Confusion Dilution of Trade Mark Distinctive Character Passing Off

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bata Limited

Appellant

Face Fashions CC

Respondent

Michael Terrence Gormley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Opposed Application; Judgment Delivered After Agreement to Be Bound by Draft Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' use of the marks 'Power House' or 'Powerhouse' on clothing infringes the appellant's registered trade marks under sections 34(1)(a) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1993.
  2. 2 Whether the use of 'Power House' is likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers as to the origin or association of the goods.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' use of 'Power House' constitutes dilution or takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the appellant's trade marks.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents' use of 'Power House' on clothing does not infringe the appellant's registered trade marks under sections 34(1)(a) or (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1993. The marks, when considered as a whole, do not closely resemble each other, and the average consumer would not be confused or deceived into believing that the respondents' clothing is associated with the appellant. The word 'Power' is common in trade mark registrations for clothing, and its use in combination with 'House' sufficiently distinguishes the respondents' mark. Furthermore, the court found that the requirements for dilution under section 34(1)(c) were not met, as the similarity between the marks...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.