South Africa Case Law

South African Medical Association N.P.C v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (13788/22)

South African Medical Association N.P.C v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (13788/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 580 (27 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13788/22

Judge

ASL VAN WYK

The High Court stayed trade mark infringement and passing-off proceedings pending the Registrar’s decision on SAMATU’s trade mark applications.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Expungement Of Trade Marks
• Honest Concurrent Use
• Trade-mark-infringement

Bousaada (Pty) Ltd and Another v FCB Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (16949/2021 ; 29891/2021)

Bousaada (Pty) Ltd and Another v FCB Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (16949/2021 ; 29891/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 863 (3 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16949/2021 ; 29891/2021

Judge

Adams

The High Court refused leave to appeal in consolidated trade mark matters, holding that FCB Africa showed no reasonable prospects of success under s 17(1)(a)(i).

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Expungement Of Trade Marks
• Unlawful Competition
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Orders

Bousaada (Pty) Limited and Another v FCB Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (16949/2021 ; 29891/2021)

Bousaada (Pty) Limited and Another v FCB Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (16949/2021 ; 29891/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 695; 2023 BIP 5 (GJ) (14 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16949/2021 ; 29891/2021

Judge

Adams

The High Court granted interdicts for MINA trade mark infringement and passing-off, and dismissed FCB Africa’s expungement counterapplication.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Expungement Of Trade Marks
• Permitted Use
• Bona Fide Intention
• Damages Enquiry

Pepsico Inc v Atlantic Industries (983/2016)

Pepsico Inc v Atlantic Industries (983/2016) [2017] ZASCA 109; 2017 BIP 122 (SCA) (15 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

983/2016

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Petse, Lamont, Rogers

The court found that the respondent's marks TWIST, LEMON TWIST and DIET TWIST are not purely descriptive but are inherently capable of distinguishing Atlantic's soft drinks from those of other producers. The word 'twist' does not describe the goods in a manner that other traders would legitimately wish to use, and its use is arbitrary in this context. The evidence showed extensive use and recognition of the TWIST mark by Atlantic. Regarding the appellant's proposed marks, the court held that the incorporation of 'TWIST' as the sole distinctive feature of Atlantic's marks into Pepsico's propos…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Registration
• Distinctiveness Of Marks
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Expungement Of Trade Marks
• Sub Branding
• Comparative Mark Analysis

Societe Des Produits Nestle SA and Another v International Foodstuffs Co and Others (100/2014)

Societe Des Produits Nestle SA and Another v International Foodstuffs Co and Others (100/2014) [2014] ZASCA 187; [2015] 1 All SA 492 (SCA); 2014 BIP 317 (SCA) (27 November 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

100/2014

Judges

Navsa ADP, Theron JA, Swain JA, Zondi JA, Dambuza AJA

The SCA held Nestlé’s Kit Kat shape marks were valid and infringed by Iffco’s similar Break bars, but rejected Nestlé’s word-mark claim.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Shape Marks
• Technical Functionality Exception
• Blurring
• Passing Off
• Expungement Of Trade Marks

Jump Sport CC t/a World of Sport and Entertainment and Another v Blue Bulls Company (Pty) Ltd (12960/2010)

Jump Sport CC t/a World of Sport and Entertainment and Another v Blue Bulls Company (Pty) Ltd (12960/2010) [2013] ZAGPPHC 101; 2013 BIP 251 (GNP) (15 April 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12960/2010

Judge

Makgoka

The court found that the defendants' application to amend their plea and counterclaim should be granted, as the plaintiff's opposition was based solely on a demand for security for costs, which is not a valid ground for objection to amendment. The issues raised in the counterclaim are substantially the same as those in the main action, and requiring security would be inappropriate and potentially infringe the defendants' constitutional right of access to courts. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the counterclaim was vexatious or without prospects of success. Regarding discovery, the Vo…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Proprietorship
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Security For Costs
• Discovery And Relevance
• Expungement Of Trade Marks
• Close Corporation Liability

McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd. and Another; McDonald's Corporation v Dax Prop CC and Another; McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd. and Another (547/95)

McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd. and Another; McDonald's Corporation v Dax Prop CC and Another; McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd. and Another (547/95) [1996] ZASCA 82; 1997 (1) SA 1 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 1 (A); (27 August 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

547/95

Judges

Corbett, E M Grosskopf, Nestadt, Schutz, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held McDonald's marks were well-known in South Africa and protected them under section 35, granting interdicts and refusing expungement.

• Trade Mark Protection
• Well Known Marks
• Expungement Of Trade Marks
• Passing Off
• Bona Fide Use
• Paris Convention