Tequila Cuervo SA de CV v Fabrication and Light Engineering CC (99935/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 10; 2017 BIP 68 (GP) (20 January 2017)

Tequila Cuervo SA de CV v Fabrication and Light Engineering CC (99935/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 10; 2017 BIP 68 (GP) (20 January 2017)

The court found that the IL CORVO proposed trademark is visually and conceptually distinct from the applicant's CUERVO and JOSE CUERVO trademarks. The differences in composition, wording, and imagery are stark, and the marks do not share distinctive dominant components. While there is some similarity in the words 'corvo' and 'cuervo', this is insufficient to cause confusion, especially given the differences in product type and consumer knowledge. The notional consumer is reasonably circumspect and observant, and would not be confused as to the origin of the goods. Without confusing similarity, none of the grounds relied upon by the applicant under sections 10(12), 10(14), or 10(17) of the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Tequila Cuervo SA de CV; Respondent: Fabrication and Light Engineering CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 January 2017
Case Number
99935/15
Procedural Posture
Opposition Application / Judgment
Outcome
Applicant's opposition dismissed with costs.
Judges
DP de Villiers
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Opposition, Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctiveness, Device Vs Word Mark, Section 10 Trade Marks Act
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Opposition Likelihood of Confusion Distinctiveness Device Vs Word Mark Section 10 Trade Marks Act

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tequila Cuervo SA de CV

Applicant

Fabrication and Light Engineering CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Opposition Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's IL CORVO proposed trademark is confusingly similar to the applicant's registered CUERVO and JOSE CUERVO trademarks.
  2. 2 Whether the use of the IL CORVO mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion under section 10(12) of the Trade Marks Act.
  3. 3 Whether the IL CORVO mark is so similar to the applicant's marks that its use on wine would be likely to deceive or cause confusion under section 10(14).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the IL CORVO proposed trademark is visually and conceptually distinct from the applicant's CUERVO and JOSE CUERVO trademarks. The differences in composition, wording, and imagery are stark, and the marks do not share distinctive dominant components. While there is some similarity in the words 'corvo' and 'cuervo', this is insufficient to cause confusion, especially given the differences in product type and consumer knowledge. The notional consumer is reasonably circumspect and observant, and would not be confused as to the origin of the goods. Without confusing similarity, none of the grounds relied upon by the applicant under sections 10(12), 10(14), or 10(17) of the...

Court Disposition

Applicant's opposition dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's opposition is dismissed with costs.