LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another (650/2020) [2022] ZASCA 161 (25 November 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZASCA 161
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Ponnan, Makgoka, Schippers, Plasket, Phatshoane
- Case number
- 650/2020
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Ponnan, Makgoka, Schippers, Plasket, Phatshoane
- Case number
- 650/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that paragraph 2(c) of its previous order contained a patent error in the trade mark registration number, referring to '2013/31832' instead of the correct '2014/31832'. Since the order is one in rem and affects a public register, the court is empowered to correct such errors to ensure the accuracy of the register and the order. The correction is justified and necessary to prevent confusion and ensure the integrity of the public record.
Court disposition
The order is amended to correct the patent error in the trade mark registration number.
Orders
- Paragraph 2(c) of the order granted in this matter is amended by the deletion of '2013' and the substitution therefor of '2014'.
02
Material facts
Parties
LA Group (Pty) Ltd
AppellantStable Brands (Pty) Ltd
RespondentThe Registrar of Trade Marks
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Amendment of Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the order granted on 22 February 2022 contains a patent error regarding the trade mark registration number.
- 02
Whether the court may correct the error in the order affecting the public register.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The parties jointly notified the registrar of the Supreme Court of Appeal that paragraph 2(c) of the order incorrectly referred to trade mark registration number '2013/31832' instead of '2014/31832'. They requested the correction of this patent error, as the order affects a public register and should accurately reflect the correct registration number.
- Respondent
- The respondents concurred with the applicant that the order contained a patent error and supported the application for its correction, emphasizing the importance of accuracy in orders affecting public registers.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro A.G. [1977] 4 All SA 600 (A); 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) at 307A-308A
A court may correct a patent error in its order where the error is clear and affects a public register.
- 02
The Gap Inc v Salt of the Earth Creations (Pty) Ltd and Others [2012] ZASCA 68; 2012 (5) SA 259 (SCA) para 2
Orders in rem affecting public registers must be accurate and may be amended to correct patent errors.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that paragraph 2(c) of its previous order contained a patent error in the trade mark registration number, referring to '2013/31832' instead of the correct '2014/31832'. Since the order is one in rem and affects a public register, the court is empowered to correct such errors to ensure the accuracy of the register and the order. The correction is justified and necessary to prevent confusion and ensure the integrity of the public record.
Obiter and limits
- The correction of patent errors in court orders is particularly important where such orders affect public registers, as accuracy is essential for legal certainty.
- The parties' joint approach to the registrar facilitated the prompt correction of the error, demonstrating the importance of cooperation in procedural matters.
Court disposition
The order is amended to correct the patent error in the trade mark registration number.
- Paragraph 2(c) of the order granted in this matter is amended by the deletion of '2013' and the substitution therefor of '2014'.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
Case no: 650/2020
In the matter between:
LA GROUP (PTY) LTD
APPELLANT
and
STABLE BRANDS (PTY)
LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE
MARKS
SECOND RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another (Case no 650/2020) [2021] ZASCA 161 (25 November 2022)
Coram: PONNAN, MAKGOKA, SCHIPPERS and PLASKET JJA and PHATSHOANE AJA
Delivered: 25 November 2022
Summary: Correction of patent error in order.
AMENDED ORDER
Paragraph 2(c) of the order granted in this matter is amended by the deletion of ‘2013’ and the substitution therefor of ‘2014’.
Schippers JA (Ponnan, Makgoka and Plasket JJA and Phatshoane AJA concurring):
[1] Paragraph 2(c) of the order granted in this appeal on 22 February 2022 reads:
‘2 The first respondent’s counter-application for the removal from the register of trade marks, in terms of s 27(1)(a) of the Act, of the following trade mark registration numbers is upheld:
. . .
(c) 2013/31832 POLO PONY & PLAYER DEVICE in class 9, save for ‘glasses, spectacles, sunglasses’;’
[2] On 12 October 2022 the parties to the appeal drew to the attention of the registrar of this Court that the aforesaid order contained a patent error, namely that ‘2013’ in the order should be deleted and substituted with ‘2014’. They accordingly sought the correction of the order. The error may be corrected,[1] particularly because the order in question is one in rem that affects a public register.[2]
[3] It is accordingly ordered that:
A SCHIPPERS
JUDGE OF APPEAL
[1] Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro A.G. [1977] 4 All SA 600 (A); 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) at 307A-308A. See Afgri Grain Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the time being of Copenship Bulkers A/S (in liquidation) and Others [2019] ZASCA 104 para 6; Oosthuizen and Another v The State [2020] ZASCA 1 para 1.
[2] The Gap Inc v Salt of the Earth Creations (Pty) Ltd and Others [2012] ZASCA 68; 2012 (5) SA 259 (SCA) para 2.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.