South Africa Case Law

Bousaada (Pty) Limited and Another v FCB Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (16949/2021 ; 29891/2021)

Bousaada (Pty) Limited and Another v FCB Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (16949/2021 ; 29891/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 695; 2023 BIP 5 (GJ) (14 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16949/2021 ; 29891/2021

Judge

Adams

The High Court granted interdicts for MINA trade mark infringement and passing-off, and dismissed FCB Africa’s expungement counterapplication.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Expungement Of Trade Marks
• Permitted Use
• Bona Fide Intention
• Damages Enquiry

Nu-World Industries (Pty) Ltd v Strix Ltd (1349/18)

Nu-World Industries (Pty) Ltd v Strix Ltd (1349/18) [2020] ZASCA 28; 2020 BIP 329 (SCA) (26 March 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1349/18

Judges

Maya, Mbha, Van der Merwe, Mokgohloa, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a damages enquiry in a patent case cannot be expanded to new alleged infringements after the infringement issue was finally decided.

• Patent Infringement
• Interpretation Of Court Orders
• Separation Of Issues
• Damages Enquiry
• Patent-infringement
• Interpretation-of-court-orders

Ellies Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Beyond Platinum (Pty) Ltd and Others (39111/2018)

Ellies Electronics (Pty) Ltd v Beyond Platinum (Pty) Ltd and Others (39111/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 324 (11 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39111/2018

Judge

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court set aside search and seizure warrants under the Counterfeit Goods Act, finding a bona fide copyright dispute had been used to justify criminal process.

• Counterfeit Goods Act
• Copyright Infringement
• Search And Seizure
• Abuse Of Process
• Damages Enquiry
• Counterfeit-goods

Bata Brands SARL and Others v Novita Shoes CC and Another (3649/2010)

Bata Brands SARL and Others v Novita Shoes CC and Another (3649/2010) [2019] ZAKZPHC 16; 2019 BIP 111 (KZP) (18 March 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

3649/2010

Judge

Gorven

The court found that the respondents' shoe sole pattern was sufficiently similar to the applicants' registered trade marks to create a likelihood of confusion among a substantial number of consumers in the marketplace. The respondents' detailed analysis of differences did not outweigh the dominant general impression of similarity. The respondents' own evidence acknowledged intentional differentiation, which the court interpreted as an admission of use as a trade mark. The survey evidence supported the finding of confusion. The court held that the respondents' use was not merely decorative but…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Damages Enquiry
• Interdict
• Reasonable Royalty

Jack Maserow Manufacturers CC v AXZS Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Don Elly Enterprises (2014/60485)

Jack Maserow Manufacturers CC v AXZS Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Don Elly Enterprises (2014/60485) [2015] ZAGPPHC 647; 2015 BIP 450 (GP) (8 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2014/60485

Judge

E Bertelsmann

The High Court found that the respondent's Seville bedroom suite infringed the applicant's registered design and granted interdictory and damages-related relief.

• Registered Design Infringement
• Novelty Requirement
• Aesthetic Design
• Damages Enquiry
• Interdict
• Designs Act 1993

Georges Briere SA v Mthimunye Engineering Works CC and Others (2518/2011)

Georges Briere SA v Mthimunye Engineering Works CC and Others (2518/2011) [2013] ZAKZDHC 70 (15 May 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

2518/2011

Judge

Mbatha

The court granted an interdict for copyright infringement over pump performance graphs and brochures, but refused passing-off and unlawful competition relief.

• Copyright Infringement
• Passing Off
• Unlawful Competition
• Trade Mark
• Interdict
• Damages Enquiry

Adidas AG and Another v Pepkor Retail Ltd (187/12)

Adidas AG and Another v Pepkor Retail Ltd (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3; 2013 BIP 203 (SCA) (28 February 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

187/12

Judges

Brand, Heher, Petse, Southwood, Erasmus

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent's use of four parallel stripes on certain footwear closely resembled the appellants' registered three-stripe trademarks in configuration, colour contrast, and placement, creating a likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers. The stripes were used as trademarks, not mere decoration, and the fame and distinctiveness of the appellants' marks increased the risk of confusion. The respondent's get-up on specific products constituted passing off, as the similarities in appearance and lack of clear distinguishing marks would likely misle…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Distinctiveness Of Trademark
• Damages Enquiry
• Get Up Comparison

Gallagher Group Ltd and Another v I O Tech Manufacturing and Others (96/6799)

Gallagher Group Ltd and Another v I O Tech Manufacturing and Others (96/6799) [2012] ZACCP 1; 2012 BIP 1 (CP) (8 February 2012)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

96/6799

Judge

M F Legodi

The court found patent infringement by the defendants’ Merlin Stealth M25S system and granted interdictory relief, with damages deferred pending the validity counterclaim.

• Patent Infringement
• Method Claims
• Burden Of Proof
• Expert Evidence
• Interdict
• Damages Enquiry

Resca and Another v Dave Sheer Gunsmithing CC (98/6778)

Resca and Another v Dave Sheer Gunsmithing CC (98/6778) [2011] ZACCP 2; 2011 BIP 6 (CP) (26 July 2011)

Court

Court of the Commissioner of Patents

Case number

98/6778

Judge

Hiemstra

The court granted relief for patent infringement, including an interdict, delivery up for destruction, and an enquiry into damages or reasonable royalty.

• Patent Infringement
• Interdict
• Damages Enquiry
• Delivery Up
• Reasonable Royalty
• Patent-infringement

Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd v Flag and Flagpole Industries t/a National Flags (72/06 , Patent Case 97/10535)

Sunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd v Flag and Flagpole Industries t/a National Flags (72/06 , Patent Case 97/10535) [2007] ZASCA 50; 2007 BIP 44 (SCA) (3 April 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

72/06

Judges

Streicher, Farlam, Nugent, Cloete, Ponnan

The SCA held that Sunsmart’s patent and registered design for a flying banner were infringed and valid, and upheld interdicts and related relief.

• Patent Infringement
• Novelty
• Obviousness
• Design Registration
• Aesthetic Design
• Damages Enquiry