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 [2023] ZAFSHC 450

Akzonobel Coatings International B.V and Another v Dumax Paints (Pty) Ltd and Others (1723/2023)

Akzonobel Coatings International B.V and Another v Dumax Paints (Pty) Ltd and Others (1723/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 450; 2023 BIP 10 (FB) (9 November 2023)

Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
1723/2023
Judge
JP Daffue

The court found that the applicants' Dulux trade mark is well-known and enjoys substantial reputation and goodwill in South Africa. Although the marks Dulux and DUMAX are not identical, the respondents' use of DUMAX and DUMAX PAINTS is sufficiently similar to the Dulux mark to take unfair advantage of its distinctive character and repute. The respondents failed to provide a convincing explanation for the choice of the DUMAX mark, and the evidence showed an intention to benefit from the applicants' established brand. The court held that the requirements for relief under s 34(1)(c) of the Trade…

Source excerpt

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Dilution
  • Passing Off
  • Trade Marks Act
  • Company Name Dispute
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2014] ZAWCHC 197

Lucky Star Ltd v Lucky Brands (Pty) Ltd and Others (4890/2014)

Lucky Star Ltd v Lucky Brands (Pty) Ltd and Others (4890/2014) [2014] ZAWCHC 197; 2014 BIP 381 (WCC) (18 December 2014)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
4890/2014
Judge
Rogers

The court found that the applicant's 'Lucky Star' marks and the respondents' 'Lucky Fish' and 'Lucky Fish & Chips' marks are not sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers. The marks differ in their composite expressions, visual appearance, and the goods and services to which they are applied. The applicant's products are canned fish sold in retail outlets, while the respondents operate restaurant and takeaway outlets selling cooked fish. The word 'Lucky' is a common adjective and not distinctive on its own; the dominant features of the marks are the…

Source excerpt

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Company Name Confusion
  • Likelihood Of Deception
  • Dilution
  • Fair And Normal Use
  • Distinctiveness
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.