Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Intellectual Property [2018] ZAGPPHC 966

Swatch AG (Swatch SA) v Apple Inc (68438/2016)

Swatch AG (Swatch SA) v Apple Inc (68438/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 966 (31 May 2018)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
68438/2016
Judge
Fabricius

The court found that the determination of confusing similarity between SWATCH and IWATCH depended on a holistic comparison of the marks, considering their visual, aural, and conceptual aspects. The court accepted that SWATCH is an ordinary English word and that the word 'watch' has lost its identity within it. The marks differ in pronunciation and conceptual meaning, with SWATCH being monosyllabic and IWATCH pronounced 'eye-WATCH'. The court held that the similarities in the last five letters do not outweigh the differences in the overall impression of the marks. The court also found that not…

Source excerpt

  • Trademark Opposition
  • Confusing Similarity
  • Passing Off
  • Likelihood Of Deception
  • Distinctive Character
  • Comparison Of Marks
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2016] ZAGPPHC 651

Feltex Holdings (Pty) Limited v Olymp Benzer GmbH and Co. KG (5918/2015)

Feltex Holdings (Pty) Limited v Olymp Benzer GmbH and Co. KG (5918/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 651; 2016 BIP 215 (GP) (28 July 2016)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
5918/2015
Judge
S L Margadie

The court found that the Applicant's trade mark 'OLYMPIC' is not limited to sportswear but extends to all clothing, and has been used in South Africa for nearly a century. The Respondent's mark 'OLYMP' is sufficiently similar to 'OLYMPIC' that its registration for similar goods would likely deceive or cause confusion among consumers. The Respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that confusion or deception would not occur, especially given the broad scope of the Applicant's registration. The court rejected the Respondent's arguments regarding market segmentation and dilution, holding…

Source excerpt

  • Trade Mark Opposition
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Onus Of Proof
  • Trade Mark Registration
  • Comparison Of Marks
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2016] ZASCA 18

Distell Limited v KZN Wines and Spirits CC (20291/2014)

Distell Limited v KZN Wines and Spirits CC (20291/2014) [2016] ZASCA 18; 2016 BIP 134 (SCA) (15 March 2016)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
20291/2014
Judges
Lewis, Cachalia, Wallis, Saldulker, Zondi

The court held that the marks BLACK KNIGHT and KNIGHTS/KNIGHT’S GOLD are sufficiently distinct in their sound, sense, and appearance, with 'black' and 'gold' being significant distinguishing features. The likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering the overall impression on the average consumer. There was no evidence of actual confusion despite years of concurrent trading, and the circumstances of purchase did not support a finding of likely deception. Consequently, the use of BLACK KNIGHT did not infringe Distell's registered trademarks under s 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks…

Source excerpt

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Passing Off
  • Trade Marks Act
  • Comparison Of Marks
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.