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
1 court collection
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 [2016] ZASCA 77

Lucky Star Ltd v Lucky Brands (Pty) Ltd and Others (164/2015)

Lucky Star Ltd v Lucky Brands (Pty) Ltd and Others (164/2015) [2016] ZASCA 77; 2017 (2) SA 588 (SCA); 2016 BIP 180 (SCA) (27 May 2016)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
164/2015
Judges
Ponnan, Petse, Swain, Dambuza, Kathree-Setiloane

The court held that the appellant failed to establish that the respondents' marks 'Lucky Fish' and 'Lucky Fish and Chips' were so similar to the appellant's registered 'Lucky Star' trade marks as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. The dominant elements of the marks ('Star' versus 'Fish') were sufficiently distinct, and the shared use of the word 'Lucky' was of minor significance given its generic nature. The court found no likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers, even considering notional use of the registered marks. The appellant's claims under s 34(1)(a), (b), and (c)…

Source excerpt

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Company Name Dispute
  • Distinctiveness Of Marks
  • Dilution Of Trade Mark
  • Companies Act Section 11
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2000] ZASCA 192

Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC and Another (206/98)

Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC and Another (206/98) [2000] ZASCA 192; 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA) (29 September 2000)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
206/98
Judges
Smalberger, Vivier, Nienaber, Harms, Melunsky

The court held that the respondents' use of 'Power House' on clothing does not infringe the appellant's registered trade marks under sections 34(1)(a) or (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1993. The marks, when considered as a whole, do not closely resemble each other, and the average consumer would not be confused or deceived into believing that the respondents' clothing is associated with the appellant. The word 'Power' is common in trade mark registrations for clothing, and its use in combination with 'House' sufficiently distinguishes the respondents' mark. Furthermore, the court found that the…

Source excerpt

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Dilution Of Trade Mark
  • Distinctive Character
  • Passing Off
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.