Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings Ltd (250/99) [2001] ZASCA 18; [2001] 4 All SA 242 (A); 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA) (16 March 2001)

Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings Ltd (250/99) [2001] ZASCA 18; [2001] 4 All SA 242 (A); 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA) (16 March 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, under the transitional provisions of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993, the procedural and jurisdictional requirements of the repealed 1963 Act applied to the present appeal. Accordingly, the appellant did not require leave to appeal and had an untrammelled right of appeal. On the merits, the Court found that the appellant's mark 'Cowbell' was visually, aurally, and conceptually distinct from the respondent's marks 'Dairybelle', 'Jerseybel', and others. The likelihood of confusion or deception was not established, as the marks did not share dominant or distinctive elements and the semantic similarities were insufficient to create confusion. The series...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 18
Parties
Appellant: Cowbell AG; Respondent: ICS Holdings Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2001
Case Number
250/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; condonation application granted; no costs order on condonation.
Judges
Nienaber, Harms, Navsa, Melunsky, Nugent
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Registration, Likelihood of Confusion, Series Objection, Condonation of Late Appeal
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Registration Likelihood of Confusion Series Objection Condonation of Late Appeal

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cowbell AG

Appellant

ICS Holdings Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal was required under the repealed Trade Marks Act 62 of 1963.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's trade mark 'Cowbell' is likely to deceive or cause confusion with the respondent's registered marks under section 17(1) of the 1963 Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's series objection is available under section 17(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, under the transitional provisions of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993, the procedural and jurisdictional requirements of the repealed 1963 Act applied to the present appeal. Accordingly, the appellant did not require leave to appeal and had an untrammelled right of appeal. On the merits, the Court found that the appellant's mark 'Cowbell' was visually, aurally, and conceptually distinct from the respondent's marks 'Dairybelle', 'Jerseybel', and others. The likelihood of confusion or deception was not established, as the marks did not share dominant or distinctive elements and the semantic similarities were insufficient to create confusion. The series...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; condonation application granted; no costs order on condonation.

Orders

  • The condonation application is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.