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
Woodlands Dairy Proprietary Limited v Sansom Farming CC and Others (2022/056524) [2025] ZAGPPHC 298 (10 March 2025)
Court dismissed a trade mark and passing-off application over FIRST CHOICE and FRESH CHOICE dairy marks, finding the composite marks not confusingly similar.
Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. v Takis Biltong (293/2022) [2023] ZASCA 175; 2023 BIP 9 (SCA) (14 December 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed reconsideration of special leave in a trade mark dispute, holding TAKIS FUEGO and TAKIS LOGO were confusingly similar.
National Brands Limited v Cape Cookies CC and Another (309/2022 ; 567/2022) [2023] ZASCA 93; 2023] 3 All SA 363 (SCA); 2024 (2) SA 296 (SCA); 2023 BIP 7 (SCA) (12 June 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 10(17) of the Trade Marks Act is not limited to non-similar goods and applies to similar goods as well. The court found that SNACKCRAX is similar to SALTICRAX, with 'CRAX' being a distinctive and dominant component not shown to be a common or descriptive term. The evidence established that SALTICRAX is a well-known mark with significant reputation and goodwill. The court concluded that registration of SNACKCRAX would likely take unfair advantage of the distinctive character and repute of SALTICRAX, as Cape Cookies would benefit from National Brand…
Source excerpt
Golden Fried Chicken (Pty) Ltd v Vlachos and Another (497/2021) [2022] ZASCA 150 (3 November 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that “Soul Souvlaki” did not infringe the registered “Soul” mark. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Cochrane Steel Products (Pty) Ltd v G Harrop-Allin and Sons (Pty) Ltd (6031/21;12358/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 408 (9 June 2022)
The court found that Harrop's use of 'RAZOR MESH' was not bona fide descriptive use but rather trademark use, given the prominence and context in which the mark appeared on Harrop's promotional materials. The mark 'RAZOR MESH' was held to be distinctive and not a generic or purely descriptive term in the fencing industry. The applicant's trademark was capable of distinguishing its goods from those of others, both at the time of registration and at the time of the application. Harrop failed to demonstrate that the mark had become customary or lost its distinctiveness. Consequently, Harrop's us…
Source excerpt
National Brands Limited v Cape Cookies CC and Another (24206/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 863; 2021 BIP 13 (GP); [2021] HIPR 196 (GP) (20 December 2021)
The court found that National Brands Limited failed to establish that the SNACKCRAX trade mark is inherently deceptive or likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers. The evidence of actual confusion was insufficient, and years of parallel trading without widespread confusion supported the conclusion that the marks are not identical or sufficiently similar to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods. The CRAX element was not found to be distinctive enough to confer exclusivity, and the overall visual, aural, and conceptual differences between SALTICRAX and SNACKCRAX were signi…
Source excerpt
Stable Brands v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (33268/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 136 (21 February 2020)
The court held that the application for leave to appeal must fail because the applicant did not raise new grounds in the notice of application for leave to appeal and failed to formally amend the notice. The applicant did not discharge its onus regarding use and distinctiveness of the trade marks, nor did it provide evidence sufficient to challenge the findings made in the original judgment. Joinder of The Polo/Lauren Company LP was unnecessary as that party did not have a substantial interest in the order. The court found no merit in the constitutional argument regarding arbitrary deprivatio…
Source excerpt
Monster Energ Company v Trade Kings SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (33735/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 569 (17 October 2019)
The High Court dismissed Monster Energy’s opposition to Trade Kings’ trade mark applications, finding the marks and goods not deceptively similar.
Dinnermates (TVL) CC v Piquante Brands International (Pty) Ltd and Another (401/17) [2018] ZASCA 43; 2018 BIP 260 (SCA) (28 March 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that PEPPAMATES was not confusingly similar to PEPPADEW and dismissed the trade mark opposition.
Tequila Cuervo SA de CV v Fabrication and Light Engineering CC (99935/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 10; 2017 BIP 68 (GP) (20 January 2017)
The High Court held that IL CORVO was not confusingly similar to CUERVO or JOSE CUERVO, and dismissed the trademark opposition with costs.
Explore more
