Mettenheimer and Another v Zonquasdrif Vineyards CC and Others (965/12) [2013] ZASCA 152; 2014 (2) SA 204 (SCA); [2014] 1 All SA 645 (SCA); 2013 BIP 302 (SCA) (19 November 2013)

Mettenheimer and Another v Zonquasdrif Vineyards CC and Others (965/12) [2013] ZASCA 152; 2014 (2) SA 204 (SCA); [2014] 1 All SA 645 (SCA); 2013 BIP 302 (SCA) (19 November 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although the marks 'Zonquasdrift' and 'Zonquasdrif Vineyards' are virtually identical, the goods in question—wine and wine grapes—are fundamentally different in nature, use, users, and trade channels. Wine grapes are sold exclusively to wine makers and co-operatives, not to the general public, while wine is marketed directly to consumers. The likelihood of confusion or deception regarding the origin of the goods is negligible, as purchasers of wine grapes are industry specialists who do not rely on trade marks or farm names. The wine of origin scheme, not the trade mark, provides the badge of origin for grapes. The appellants failed to establish that...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 152
Parties
Appellant: Alexander Anatole Theodor Mettenheimer; Appellant: Zonquasdrift Estates (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Zonquasdrif Vineyards CC; Respondent: Registrar of Close Corporations; Respondent: Registrar of Trade Marks
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Case Number
965/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel whenever employed.
Judges
Brand, Theron, Pillay, Petse, Meyer
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Likelihood of Confusion, Close Corporation Name Dispute, Badge of Origin, Wine of Origin Scheme
Intellectual Property Commercial and Corporate Trade Mark Infringement Likelihood of Confusion Close Corporation Name Dispute Badge of Origin Wine of Origin Scheme

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Anatole Theodor Mettenheimer

Appellant

Zonquasdrift Estates (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Zonquasdrif Vineyards CC

Respondent

Registrar of Close Corporations

Respondent

Registrar of Trade Marks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's use of 'Zonquasdrif Vineyards' for wine grapes infringes the appellants' registered trade mark 'Zonquasdrift' for wine under s 34(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's close corporation name is calculated to cause damage to the appellants as contemplated in s 20(2)(b) of the Close Corporations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the likelihood of deception or confusion exists between wine and wine grapes under the relevant statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although the marks 'Zonquasdrift' and 'Zonquasdrif Vineyards' are virtually identical, the goods in question—wine and wine grapes—are fundamentally different in nature, use, users, and trade channels. Wine grapes are sold exclusively to wine makers and co-operatives, not to the general public, while wine is marketed directly to consumers. The likelihood of confusion or deception regarding the origin of the goods is negligible, as purchasers of wine grapes are industry specialists who do not rely on trade marks or farm names. The wine of origin scheme, not the trade mark, provides the badge of origin for grapes. The appellants failed to establish that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel whenever employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel whenever employed.