Edcon Limited v Edgars Consolidated Stores Limited and Another (23718/2006) [2018] ZAGPPHC 695; 2019 BIP 105 (GP) (12 September 2018)

Edcon Limited v Edgars Consolidated Stores Limited and Another (23718/2006) [2018] ZAGPPHC 695; 2019 BIP 105 (GP) (12 September 2018)

The court held that Edcon, as the current proprietor of the relevant trade mark, has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the main action and is entitled to be joined as a party. The requirements of Rule 10 of the Uniform Rules of Court were satisfied, as Edcon's right to relief depends on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 695
Parties
Applicant: Edcon Limited; Respondent: Edgars Consolidated Stores Limited; Respondent: Sedgars
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2018
Case Number
23718/2006
Procedural Posture
Joinder Application / Application for Joinder and Costs Determination
Outcome
Joinder granted; costs awarded against the second respondent.
Judges
R G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Trade Mark Infringement, Assignment of Intellectual Property, Prescription, Reasonable Royalty
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Trade Mark Infringement Assignment of Intellectual Property Prescription Reasonable Royalty

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edcon Limited

Applicant

Edgars Consolidated Stores Limited

Respondent

Sedgars

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joinder Application / Application for Joinder and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Edcon Limited should be joined as a party to the main action based on its acquisition of the trade mark rights.
  2. 2 Whether the joinder application is in substance a substitution and if such substitution would prejudice Sedgars.
  3. 3 Whether Sedgars would be deprived of its prescription defence if Edcon is joined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Edcon, as the current proprietor of the relevant trade mark, has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the main action and is entitled to be joined as a party. The requirements of Rule 10 of the Uniform Rules of Court were satisfied, as Edcon's right to relief depends on substantially the same questions of law and fact as those in the main action. The court rejected Sedgars' argument that the application was a substitution rather than a joinder, noting that Edcon did not seek to substitute Edgars but to join as an additional plaintiff. The court found that the claim for an interdict cannot prescribe and that Sedgars would not be deprived of its...

Court Disposition

Joinder granted; costs awarded against the second respondent.

Orders

  • Edcon Limited is joined as the Second Plaintiff in case number 23718/2006.
  • Second Respondent is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs in the Rule 6(11) application, which costs will include the costs of two counsel.