South Africa Case Law

Reckitt Benckiser SA (Pty) Ltd v Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd (15717/04)

Reckitt Benckiser SA (Pty) Ltd v Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd (15717/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 27; 2005 BIP 114 (T) (11 March 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

15717/04

Judge

E Bertelsmann

The court found that while the applicant's trade mark 'WILD FLOWERS' was validly registered under the old Act and its original entry cannot be attacked, the mark is purely descriptive in relation to air fresheners and lacks distinctiveness. Both parties use the term to describe the scent and qualities of their products, and the evidence shows it is a common descriptive term in the trade. The respondent's use was bona fide and not intended to usurp goodwill. Under section 10(2) of the 1993 Act, the mark is not capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from others and is wrongly remaining…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Expungement
• Distinctiveness
• Descriptive Use
• Trade Mark Infringement
• Bona Fide Description
• Costs Award

Plascon-Evans Paints (TVL) Ltd. v Van Riebeck Paints (Pty) Ltd. (53/84)

Plascon-Evans Paints (TVL) Ltd. v Van Riebeck Paints (Pty) Ltd. (53/84) [1984] ZASCA 51; [1984] 2 All SA 366 (A); 1984 (3) SA 623; 1984 (3) SA 620 (21 May 1984)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

53/84

Judges

Corbett, Miller, Nicholas, Galgut, Howard

The court held that use of the mark “Mikacote” infringed the registered trade mark “Micatex” and was not protected as a bona fide description.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Bona Fide Description
• Passing Off
• Statutory Interpretation
• Trade-mark-infringement