Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Jonsson Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Aktiebolaget, P.J Jonnson Och Soner (52169/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1091 (23 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an opposition to JONNSON registration in class 7, holding that heavy mining machinery is too dissimilar from protective clothing and footwear to cause confusion.
Swatch AG (Swatch SA) v Apple Inc (68438/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 966 (31 May 2018)
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
TPN Group (Pty) Limited v Ebay Inc (37922/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 190; 2017 BIP 57 (GP); 2015 BIP 213 (GP) (16 March 2015)
The court found that although the RENTBAY mark shares the 'Bay' element with eBay's marks, both marks consist of two equally significant features, and the combination of 'Rent' and 'Bay' in TPN's mark is sufficiently distinct from eBay's use of 'eBay'. The word 'Bay' is not an invented word and is commonly used in other trade marks. The services for which TPN seeks registration are either not identical or only superficially similar to those covered by eBay's registrations. The evidence did not establish a reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception among the public. The court also found t…
Source excerpt
Basic Trade Mark S.A. v Karelia Tobacco Company Inc (39311/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 119 (17 February 2015)
The court dismissed an opposition to KAPPA’s registration in Class 34, finding no bad faith, no likelihood of confusion, and no proven tarnishment.
Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC and Another (206/98) [2000] ZASCA 192; 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA) (29 September 2000)
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
Explore more
