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
Burton's Foods Ltd v Boxer Superstores (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/124862) [2025] ZAGPPHC 650 (19 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed Burton’s Foods’ opposition to Boxer Superstores’ WHEELS DEVICE trade mark applications, finding no likely confusion with WAGON WHEELS.
Fuchs Petrolub AG v Castrol Limited and Another (35631/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1031; 2014 BIP 302 (GP) (4 December 2014)
The court found that Castrol's mark 'TITANIUM FLUID STRENGTH TECHNOLOGY' is a composite mark and must be considered in its entirety when compared to Fuchs's 'TITAN' mark. The comparison should not be limited to the dominant element 'TITANIUM'. On a global appreciation of the marks, there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception between 'TITAN' and 'TITANIUM FLUID STRENGTH TECHNOLOGY', either visually, phonetically, or conceptually. The court also found that even if the comparison were limited to 'TITAN' and 'TITANIUM', the words are sufficiently distinct in meaning, appearance, a…
Source excerpt
Yair Shimansky and Another v Browns the Diamond Store Proprietary Limited (9/2014) [2014] ZASCA 214; 2014 BIP 341 (SCA) (1 December 2014)
The court held that the marks EVOLYM and EVOLVE, when considered globally, do not resemble each other in such a way as to cause deception or confusion. The visual similarity of the first four letters is insufficient, as the remainder of the marks differ significantly. Aural similarity is not established, and conceptual similarity is absent. The average purchaser of engagement or wedding rings is careful and unlikely to be confused, given the considered nature of such purchases and the distinct meanings of the marks. The court found no infringement under section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act…
Source excerpt
Explore more
