Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Technical Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v RTS Industries and Others (17470/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 292 (14 July 2025)
The High Court ordered the respondents to pay party-and-party costs after the merits were settled, finding their abandonment of the plant justified a costs award.
Southern Liqueur Company Limited v Noble Spirits (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (7243/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 285 (11 July 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused in a trade mark interdict dispute about AFRULA and AMARULA, with costs awarded against the respondent.
ADP Marine & Modular Proprietary Limited v Rocher and Others (5701/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 281 (9 July 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any necessity or urgency for repeated preservation relief, as the Anton Pillar order of 25 July 2023 already secured the preservation of the seized information and documentation in the custody of the Sheriff. No evidence of threat or interference was presented. Regarding the request to use the seized material for criminal complaints, the court held that the SAPS has sufficient statutory mechanisms to obtain evidence for criminal investigations, and it is not the role of the civil court to dictate or facilitate the use of such material i…
Source excerpt
Van den Berg Water (Pty) Ltd t/a Oasis Water Lynnwood and Others v Oasis Water (Pty) Ltd and Another (989/2023; 988/2023; 1120/2023) [2025] ZASCA 98 (4 July 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the post-termination provisions in the franchise agreements were clear and enforceable, requiring franchisees to return all proprietary materials, signage, and cease using Oasis' business system and intellectual property. The evidence established that the franchisees retained and used confidential information, client lists, and marketing strategies gained during the franchise period, and continued to exploit Oasis' business system after termination. The constitutional defences and CPA-based arguments were either not properly pleaded or unsupported by evid…
Source excerpt
Yossi Barel v Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (23 June 2025)
The majority held that counterfeiting under South African law requires more than mere trademark infringement; it demands a deliberate and fraudulent intent to deceive or pass off goods as those of another. Popular Trading's goods were authentic, sourced directly from the original Italian manufacturer, and lacked any intent to deceive the public or pass off the goods as those of Mr Barel. The evidence did not establish that Popular Trading intended its goods to be confused with or taken as being Mr Barel's goods. Mere knowledge of Mr Barel's trademark registration did not convert the continued…
Source excerpt
Burton's Foods Ltd v Boxer Superstores (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/124862) [2025] ZAGPPHC 650 (19 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed Burton’s Foods’ opposition to Boxer Superstores’ WHEELS DEVICE trade mark applications, finding no likely confusion with WAGON WHEELS.
Timrite (Pty) Ltd and Another v Vesper Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/063620) [2025] ZACCP 2 (12 June 2025)
The court found that the issues raised in the amendment application, specifically the objections of lack of fair basis and continuing invalidity, are intertwined with those in the pending declaration of non-infringement application. Determining the amendment application in isolation would risk rendering the pending proceedings irrelevant and could prejudice the parties. The court has discretion under section 51(9) of the Patents Act to manage the proceedings as it sees fit. Given the overlap and the fact that the parties' arguments and evidence are rooted in the same expert affidavit, the cou…
Source excerpt
Mountain Reach Technologies v Mampudima Community Company and Another (061917/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 521 (2 June 2025)
The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll after finding no urgency to compel return of documents, delete copies, or restrain use of alleged intellectual property.
Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phillips (Leave to Appeal) (00001/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 514 (26 May 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused because the underlying compulsory licence would have expired before any appeal could be heard, and no practical effect would follow.
Kodisang and Others v THK Gallery and Others (2025/066625) [2025] ZAWCHC 214 (21 May 2025)
The High Court granted an urgent interim interdict over an art exhibition titled “Your Beauty Is Our Concern,” finding passing off and misappropriation of the applicants’ earlier work.
Explore more
