Stable Brands v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (33268/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 136 (21 February 2020)

Stable Brands v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (33268/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 136 (21 February 2020)

The court held that the application for leave to appeal must fail because the applicant did not raise new grounds in the notice of application for leave to appeal and failed to formally amend the notice. The applicant did not discharge its onus regarding use and distinctiveness of the trade marks, nor did it provide evidence sufficient to challenge the findings made in the original judgment. Joinder of The Polo/Lauren Company LP was unnecessary as that party did not have a substantial interest in the order. The court found no merit in the constitutional argument regarding arbitrary deprivation of property, as the findings were made rationally and based on the evidence and statutory...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 136
Parties
Applicant: Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: LA Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Registrar of Trade Marks
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Case Number
33268/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 29 November 2019.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
C J van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Expungement, Distinctiveness, Joinder, Onus of Proof, Constitutional Property Rights
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Expungement Distinctiveness Joinder Onus of Proof Constitutional Property Rights

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

LA Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Registrar of Trade Marks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 29 November 2019.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment and order delivered on 29 November 2019.
  2. 2 Whether grounds not raised in the notice of application for leave to appeal may be relied upon.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged its onus regarding trade mark use and distinctiveness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for leave to appeal must fail because the applicant did not raise new grounds in the notice of application for leave to appeal and failed to formally amend the notice. The applicant did not discharge its onus regarding use and distinctiveness of the trade marks, nor did it provide evidence sufficient to challenge the findings made in the original judgment. Joinder of The Polo/Lauren Company LP was unnecessary as that party did not have a substantial interest in the order. The court found no merit in the constitutional argument regarding arbitrary deprivation of property, as the findings were made rationally and based on the evidence and statutory...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order delivered and granted on 29 November 2019 is dismissed.
  • The applicant (first respondent a quo) is to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employ of two counsel.