Southern Liquer Company Ltd v SLD Liquor Manufacturers Ltd (19693/08) [2011] ZAWCHC 268 (15 June 2011)
The court found that the applicant's 'Amarula' trade mark had acquired distinctiveness through extensive use and advertising, qualifying it for continued registration despite its descriptive element. The respondent's use of 'Marula' on its product labels was not bona fide descriptive use but was designed to take unfair advantage of the reputation and distinctive character of the 'Amarula' mark. The respondent's labelling practices diluted its own trade mark 'Black Horse' and gave undue prominence to 'Marula', creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the origin of the goods. The respondent failed to unequivocally distinguish its product from that of the applicant, and its...
- Citation
- [2011] ZAWCHC 268
- Parties
- Applicant: Southern Liqueur Company Limited; Respondent: SLD Liquor Manufacturers Limited; Applicant: SLD Liquor Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Southern Liqueur Company Limited; Respondent: Registrar of Trade Marks
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 15 June 2011
- Case Number
- 19693/08
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application granted; respondent's counter-application dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Goliath
- Legal Topics
- Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Distinctiveness, Bona Fide Use, Removal of Trade Mark, Trade Mark Registration
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Southern Liqueur Company Limited
Applicant
SLD Liquor Manufacturers Limited
Respondent
SLD Liquor Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Southern Liqueur Company Limited
Respondent
Registrar of Trade Marks
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's use of the mark 'Marula' constitutes unauthorized trade mark use or bona fide descriptive use.
- 2 Whether the applicant's trade mark 'Amarula' is distinctive and capable of distinguishing its goods.
- 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to trade mark infringement under section 34(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's 'Amarula' trade mark had acquired distinctiveness through extensive use and advertising, qualifying it for continued registration despite its descriptive element. The respondent's use of 'Marula' on its product labels was not bona fide descriptive use but was designed to take unfair advantage of the reputation and distinctive character of the 'Amarula' mark. The respondent's labelling practices diluted its own trade mark 'Black Horse' and gave undue prominence to 'Marula', creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the origin of the goods. The respondent failed to unequivocally distinguish its product from that of the applicant, and its...
Court Disposition
Application granted; respondent's counter-application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The respondent is interdicted and restrained from infringing the applicant's registered trade mark 'AMARULA' in Class 33 by using, in the course of trade, in relation to alcoholic beverages, the mark 'MARULA', or any other mark so similar to the 'AMARULA' mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
- The respondent is interdicted and restrained from infringing the applicant's registered trade mark 'AMARULA' in Class 33 (being a well-known mark) by using, in the course of trade, in relation to alcoholic beverages, the mark 'MARULA', where such use would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to,...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment