Dynasol Elastomers, S.A. DE C.V v SK Global Chemical Co. Ltd (19764/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 75 (3 March 2017)

Dynasol Elastomers, S.A. DE C.V v SK Global Chemical Co. Ltd (19764/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 75 (3 March 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing its opposition papers. The only reason advanced was the need to obtain details and evidence, and the fact that the applicant is based in Mexico, but no specifics were provided. The applicant did not apply for an extension in terms of regulation 52(2) and waited over five months after knowing opposition would be required. The court held that the explanation was vague and inadequate, and that the requirements for condonation were not met. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed, making it unnecessary to consider the merits of the opposition to the trade...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 75
Parties
Applicant: Dynasol Elastomers, S.A DE C.V; Respondent: SK Global Chemical Co. Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2017
Case Number
19764/2015
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Referral From Registrar Under S 59(2) of the Trade Marks Act
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
J W Louw
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Opposition, Condonation, Late Filing, Regulation 52, Failure to Explain Delay
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Opposition Condonation Late Filing Regulation 52 Failure to Explain Delay

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dynasol Elastomers, S.A DE C.V

Applicant

SK Global Chemical Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Referral From Registrar Under S 59(2) of the Trade Marks Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the late filing of its opposition to the respondent's trade mark application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing should be granted under the Trade Marks Act and applicable regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing its opposition papers. The only reason advanced was the need to obtain details and evidence, and the fact that the applicant is based in Mexico, but no specifics were provided. The applicant did not apply for an extension in terms of regulation 52(2) and waited over five months after knowing opposition would be required. The court held that the explanation was vague and inadequate, and that the requirements for condonation were not met. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed, making it unnecessary to consider the merits of the opposition to the trade...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for condonation for the late filing of its opposition to the respondent's trade mark application no. 2012/0665 is dismissed with costs.