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 [2014] ZAGPPHC 646

Chespak (Pty) Ltd v MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd (A385/12)

Chespak (Pty) Ltd v MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd (A385/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 646; 2014 BIP 465 (GP) (27 August 2014)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
A385/12
Judges
C.P. Rabie, N. Kollapen, S.A.M. Baqwa

The court found that the registered design is not a commonplace utilitarian object but possesses unique and distinctive aesthetic features that appeal to the eye. The definitive statement and photographs support the conclusion that the design is protected as an aesthetic design under the Act. The appellant's attempt to isolate every feature as purely functional was rejected, as many features serve both functional and aesthetic purposes. The Chespak crate was found to be strikingly similar to the registered design, with any differences being minor and immaterial. The overall impression is one…

Source excerpt

  • Registered Designs
  • Aesthetic Vs Functional Features
  • Designs Act 195 Of 1993
  • Scope Of Design Registration
  • Infringement Test
  • Condonation Of Late Filing
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2007] ZASCA 24

Clipsal Australia (Pty) Ltd and Another v Trust Electrical Wholesalers and Another (125/06)

Clipsal Australia (Pty) Ltd and Another v Trust Electrical Wholesalers and Another (125/06) [2007] ZASCA 24; [2007] 4 All SA 1082 (SCA); 2009 (3) SA 292 (SCA); 2007 BIP 432 (SCA) (23 March 2007)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
125/06
Judges
Harms, Streicher, Cloete, Lewis, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in finding that the registered design lacked novelty and originality. The court confirmed that mosaicing prior art is not permissible for assessing novelty in design law. The registered design was found to be new, as none of the prior art documents disclosed the design as a whole, and the differences identified by the respondents were insubstantial and related only to secondary features. The court clarified that originality under the Designs Act requires independent creation and not mere absence of commonality. The respondents' produc…

Source excerpt

  • Registered Designs
  • Novelty And Originality
  • Designs Act 195 Of 1993
  • Infringement
  • Prior Art
  • Remedies For Infringement
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.