South Africa Case Law

Nativa (Pty) Limited v Austell Laboratories (Pty) Limited (1289/2018)

Nativa (Pty) Limited v Austell Laboratories (Pty) Limited (1289/2018) [2020] ZASCA 11; 2020 (5) SA 452 (SCA); 2020 BIP 562 (SCA) (19 March 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1289/2018

Judges

Navsa, Molemela, Schippers, Mojapelo, Eksteen

The SCA upheld an interim interdict against false disparagement in a television advertisement, finding the respondent’s claims about glucosamine and chondroitin were untrue.

• Unlawful Competition
• Injurious Falsehood
• Interim Interdict
• False Advertising
• Goodwill Protection
• Unlawful-competition

Perumal v Big Boy Scooters (SA Motorcycles (Pty) Ltd) (NCT/86201/2017/75(1)(b))

Perumal v Big Boy Scooters (SA Motorcycles (Pty) Ltd) (NCT/86201/2017/75(1)(b)) [2017] ZANCT 117 (8 October 2017)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/86201/2017/75(1)(b)

Judge

Tanya Woker

The Tribunal granted leave to refer a consumer complaint about misdescribed bikes, alleged false advertising, and refusal of refund or compliant replacement.

• Consumer Protection Act
• False Advertising
• Quality Of Goods
• Refund Rights
• Industry Ombud Rulings
• Consumer-protection-act

Treatment Action Campaign and Another v Rath and Others (12156/05)

Treatment Action Campaign and Another v Rath and Others (12156/05) [2008] ZAWCHC 34; [2008] 4 All SA 360 (C) (13 June 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12156/05

Judge

Zondi

The court found that VitaCell, distributed by the Rath respondents, qualifies as a 'medicine' under the Medicines Act due to the medicinal claims made about its efficacy in treating AIDS. The supply of VitaCell to SANCO constitutes a sale under the Act, even if no consideration is received. However, VitaCell is not subject to mandatory registration as a medicine under the 2002 call-up notice, which only initiates a process for potential registration. The Rath respondents conducted clinical trials without authorisation, which is unlawful under the Medicines Act and its regulations. The adverti…

Source excerpt

• Medicines And Related Substances Act
• Clinical Trials Regulation
• False Advertising
• Ministerial Duties
• Judicial Review
• Public Health Policy

Reckitt & Colman SA (Pty) Ltd v S C Johnson & Son SA (Pty) Ltd (203/90)

Reckitt & Colman SA (Pty) Ltd v S C Johnson & Son SA (Pty) Ltd (203/90) [1991] ZASCA 181; 1993 (2) SA 307 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 27 (A) (28 November 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

203/90

Judges

Corbett, Nestadt, Vivier, Goldstone, Harms

The court found no reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception between Brasso and Brillo brass polish, as the respective containers were clearly marked with distinct trademarks and design elements. The similarities in container shape and colour were not sufficient to cause confusion, and the survey evidence presented by the appellant was flawed and unreliable. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent used the Brillo trade mark without the owner's assent, as evidence showed the respondent had permission to use the mark. The legend 'Working Hard 75 Years' was ambiguous but not obje…

Source excerpt

• Passing Off
• Trade Mark Infringement
• False Advertising
• Merchandise Marks Act
• Trade Practices Act