Chespak (Pty) Ltd v MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd (A385/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 646; 2014 BIP 465 (GP) (27 August 2014)

Chespak (Pty) Ltd v MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd (A385/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 646; 2014 BIP 465 (GP) (27 August 2014)

The court found that the registered design is not a commonplace utilitarian object but possesses unique and distinctive aesthetic features that appeal to the eye. The definitive statement and photographs support the conclusion that the design is protected as an aesthetic design under the Act. The appellant's attempt to isolate every feature as purely functional was rejected, as many features serve both functional and aesthetic purposes. The Chespak crate was found to be strikingly similar to the registered design, with any differences being minor and immaterial. The overall impression is one of substantial similarity, and the Chespak crate infringes the registered design. Condonation for...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 646
Parties
Appellant: Chespak (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2014
Case Number
A385/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order Granting Interdict for Design Infringement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Condonation for late filing of the record of appeal granted.
Judges
C.P. Rabie, N. Kollapen, S.A.M. Baqwa
Legal Topics
Registered Designs, Aesthetic Vs Functional Features, Designs Act 195 of 1993, Scope of Design Registration, Infringement Test, Condonation of Late Filing
Intellectual Property Registered Designs Aesthetic Vs Functional Features Designs Act 195 of 1993 Scope of Design Registration Infringement Test Condonation of Late Filing

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chespak (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order Granting Interdict for Design Infringement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registered design is invalid for protecting functional features in an aesthetic design.
  2. 2 Whether the Chespak crate is substantially different from the registered design and thus does not infringe.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing of the record of appeal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the registered design is not a commonplace utilitarian object but possesses unique and distinctive aesthetic features that appeal to the eye. The definitive statement and photographs support the conclusion that the design is protected as an aesthetic design under the Act. The appellant's attempt to isolate every feature as purely functional was rejected, as many features serve both functional and aesthetic purposes. The Chespak crate was found to be strikingly similar to the registered design, with any differences being minor and immaterial. The overall impression is one of substantial similarity, and the Chespak crate infringes the registered design. Condonation for...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Condonation for late filing of the record of appeal granted.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the Record of Appeal.
  • The costs of the application for condonation shall be paid by the appellant on an unopposed basis.