Nativa (Pty) Limited v Austell Laboratories (Pty) Limited (1289/2018) [2020] ZASCA 11; 2020 (5) SA 452 (SCA); 2020 BIP 562 (SCA) (19 March 2020)

Nativa (Pty) Limited v Austell Laboratories (Pty) Limited (1289/2018) [2020] ZASCA 11; 2020 (5) SA 452 (SCA); 2020 BIP 562 (SCA) (19 March 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent's advertisements, both initial and altered, falsely disparaged the appellant's OSTEOEZE products by claiming that glucosamine and chondroitin posed health risks to persons with certain medical conditions. Expert evidence presented by the appellant established that these claims were medically unfounded and unsupported by acceptable scientific literature. The advertisements were intended to divert customers from the appellant's products to the respondent's PIASCLEDINE, amounting to unlawful competition and injurious falsehood. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the appellant had a prima facie right to carry on its...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 11
Parties
Appellant: Nativa (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Austell Laboratories (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Case Number
1289/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; interim interdict granted against the respondent pending final determination of the action for interdictory relief and damages.
Judges
Navsa, Molemela, Schippers, Mojapelo, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Unlawful Competition, Injurious Falsehood, Interim Interdict, False Advertising, Goodwill Protection
Commercial and Corporate Delict Unlawful Competition Injurious Falsehood Interim Interdict False Advertising Goodwill Protection

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nativa (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Austell Laboratories (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's advertisements constituted unlawful competition by falsely disparaging the appellant's OSTEOEZE products.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to an interim interdict restraining the respondent from broadcasting the altered advertisement.
  3. 3 Whether the statements regarding health risks of glucosamine and chondroitin were false and unsupported by medical evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent's advertisements, both initial and altered, falsely disparaged the appellant's OSTEOEZE products by claiming that glucosamine and chondroitin posed health risks to persons with certain medical conditions. Expert evidence presented by the appellant established that these claims were medically unfounded and unsupported by acceptable scientific literature. The advertisements were intended to divert customers from the appellant's products to the respondent's PIASCLEDINE, amounting to unlawful competition and injurious falsehood. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the appellant had a prima facie right to carry on its...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; interim interdict granted against the respondent pending final determination of the action for interdictory relief and damages.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with an order interdicting and restraining the respondent from utilising or causing to be flighted the PIASCLEDINE advertisement described as the amended advertisement or any part thereof, and/or any colourable imitation thereof, in any manner.