Beecham Group PLC v Colgate-Palmolive Company (A828/08, A829/08, A830/08) [2011] ZAGPPHC 160; 2011 BIP 159 (GSJ) (11 May 2011)

Beecham Group PLC v Colgate-Palmolive Company (A828/08, A829/08, A830/08) [2011] ZAGPPHC 160; 2011 BIP 159 (GSJ) (11 May 2011)

The court held that, although Beecham's late opposition was technically an irregular step since the extensions were granted to GlaxoSmithKline and not Beecham, the Registrar was entitled to exercise discretion to overlook the irregularity due to the close inter-relatedness of the companies within the group. The evidence provided by Beecham's attorney, based on longstanding practice and experience, was sufficient to explain why the extension was sought by one company and the opposition filed by another. The court found no substantial prejudice to Colgate, as the onus to prove registrability would remain regardless of opposition. Consequently, there was no basis to interfere with the...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 160
Parties
Respondent: Beecham Group PLC; Appellant: Colgate-Palmolive Company
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Case Number
A828/08, A829/08, A830/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Registrar's decision upheld.
Judges
B.R. Du Plessis, S. Potterill, J. Goodey
Legal Topics
Trade Marks Act, Irregular Procedure, Corporate Veil Piercing, Condonation for Late Opposition
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Marks Act Irregular Procedure Corporate Veil Piercing Condonation for Late Opposition

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beecham Group PLC

Respondent

Colgate-Palmolive Company

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Beecham's late opposition to Colgate's trade mark applications constituted an irregular procedural step.
  2. 2 Whether extensions granted to GlaxoSmithKline could be deemed to apply to Beecham as a related company.
  3. 3 Whether the Registrar properly exercised discretion to overlook any procedural irregularity in the opposition process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although Beecham's late opposition was technically an irregular step since the extensions were granted to GlaxoSmithKline and not Beecham, the Registrar was entitled to exercise discretion to overlook the irregularity due to the close inter-relatedness of the companies within the group. The evidence provided by Beecham's attorney, based on longstanding practice and experience, was sufficient to explain why the extension was sought by one company and the opposition filed by another. The court found no substantial prejudice to Colgate, as the onus to prove registrability would remain regardless of opposition. Consequently, there was no basis to interfere with the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Registrar's decision upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal in case number A828/08 is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal in case number A829/08 is dismissed with costs.