Milestone Beverage CC and Others v Scottish Whisky Association and Others (2882/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 394 (27 August 2019)

Milestone Beverage CC and Others v Scottish Whisky Association and Others (2882/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 394 (27 August 2019)

The court found that the applicants' rule 34 tender and undertaking regarding the ROYAL DOUGLAS product did not fully address the respondents' complaints, as the changes made were considered cosmetic and did not alleviate the respondents' concerns. The unlawful acts were not confined to KING ARTHUR but extended to ROYAL DOUGLAS, justifying the respondents' continuation of the application. The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the successful party, the respondents. Regarding leave to appeal, the court was not convinced that there were reasonable prospects of success but found compelling reasons to grant leave, as some issues pertained to points of law and interpretation, and...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 394
Parties
Applicant: Milestone Beverage CC; Applicant: The Trustees for the Time Being of the T and S Haupt Family Trust (021433/2014); Applicant: Sean Peter Haupt; Respondent: The Scotch Whisky Association; Respondent: Chivas Brothers Ltd; Respondent: Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd; Respondent: Pernod Ricard South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2019
Case Number
2882/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Adjudication of Reserved Costs Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; costs of the main application awarded to the respondents.
Judges
E.M. Kubushi
Legal Topics
Unlawful Competition, Passing Off, Costs Award, Leave to Appeal, Rule 34 Tender, Superior Courts Act Interpretation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Unlawful Competition Passing Off Costs Award Leave to Appeal Rule 34 Tender Superior Courts Act Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milestone Beverage CC

Applicant

The Trustees for the Time Being of the T and S Haupt Family Trust (021433/2014)

Applicant

Sean Peter Haupt

Applicant

The Scotch Whisky Association

Respondent

Chivas Brothers Ltd

Respondent

Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd

Respondent

Pernod Ricard South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Adjudication of Reserved Costs Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' rule 34 tender and undertaking regarding the ROYAL DOUGLAS product should affect the costs order in the main application.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole of the judgment and order handed down on 4 March 2019.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' rule 34 tender and undertaking regarding the ROYAL DOUGLAS product did not fully address the respondents' complaints, as the changes made were considered cosmetic and did not alleviate the respondents' concerns. The unlawful acts were not confined to KING ARTHUR but extended to ROYAL DOUGLAS, justifying the respondents' continuation of the application. The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the successful party, the respondents. Regarding leave to appeal, the court was not convinced that there were reasonable prospects of success but found compelling reasons to grant leave, as some issues pertained to points of law and interpretation, and...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; costs of the main application awarded to the respondents.

Orders

  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the main application.
  • The application for leave to appeal is granted.