Takis Biltong (Pty) Ltd v Grupo Bimbo S.A.B DE C.V (A393/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 844; 2021 BIP 12 (GP); [2021] HIPR 183 (GP) (10 December 2021)

Takis Biltong (Pty) Ltd v Grupo Bimbo S.A.B DE C.V (A393/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 844; 2021 BIP 12 (GP); [2021] HIPR 183 (GP) (10 December 2021)

The court found that although the marks in question share the word 'TAKIS', the respondent's TAKIS FUEGO LOGO is not identical to the appellant's TAKIS logo, as it includes the word 'FUEGO' and the BARCEL logo. More importantly, the goods covered by the respective trademarks are not similar: the appellant's mark is registered for meat products (class 29), while the respondent's mark is for tortilla chips (class 30). The appellant has not established a reputation or goodwill in selling chips, and the respondent does not trade in meat products. Given the lack of similarity in the goods and the differences in the marks, there is no likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers. The...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 844
Parties
Appellant: Takis Biltong (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Grupo Bimbo S.A.B DE C.V
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Case Number
A393/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo Delivered on 14 June 2018; Appeal Against Paragraph (a) of the Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Makhoba, Davis
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Likelihood of Confusion, Similarity of Goods, Removal From Register
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Infringement Likelihood of Confusion Similarity of Goods Removal From Register

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Takis Biltong (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Grupo Bimbo S.A.B DE C.V

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo Delivered on 14 June 2018; Appeal Against Paragraph (a) of the Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's TAKIS FUEGO LOGO mark is deceptively or confusingly similar to the appellant's TAKIS logo.
  2. 2 Whether the goods covered by the respective trademarks are sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion or deception.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's use of its mark constitutes an infringement under sections 10(12), 10(14), 10(16), or 10(17) of the Trade Marks Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the marks in question share the word 'TAKIS', the respondent's TAKIS FUEGO LOGO is not identical to the appellant's TAKIS logo, as it includes the word 'FUEGO' and the BARCEL logo. More importantly, the goods covered by the respective trademarks are not similar: the appellant's mark is registered for meat products (class 29), while the respondent's mark is for tortilla chips (class 30). The appellant has not established a reputation or goodwill in selling chips, and the respondent does not trade in meat products. Given the lack of similarity in the goods and the differences in the marks, there is no likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.