Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Intellectual Property [2014] ZAGPPHC 646

Chespak (Pty) Ltd v MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd (A385/12)

Chespak (Pty) Ltd v MCG Industries (Pty) Ltd (A385/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 646; 2014 BIP 465 (GP) (27 August 2014)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
A385/12
Judges
C.P. Rabie, N. Kollapen, S.A.M. Baqwa

The court found that the registered design is not a commonplace utilitarian object but possesses unique and distinctive aesthetic features that appeal to the eye. The definitive statement and photographs support the conclusion that the design is protected as an aesthetic design under the Act. The appellant's attempt to isolate every feature as purely functional was rejected, as many features serve both functional and aesthetic purposes. The Chespak crate was found to be strikingly similar to the registered design, with any differences being minor and immaterial. The overall impression is one…

Source excerpt

  • Registered Designs
  • Aesthetic Vs Functional Features
  • Designs Act 195 Of 1993
  • Scope Of Design Registration
  • Infringement Test
  • Condonation Of Late Filing
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [1984] ZASCA 36

Homecraft Steel Industries (Pty) Ltd. v S M Hare & Son (Pty) Ltd. and Another (38/84)

Homecraft Steel Industries (Pty) Ltd. v S M Hare & Son (Pty) Ltd. and Another (38/84) [1984] ZASCA 36; 1984 (3) SA 681 (A) (29 March 1984)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
38/84
Judges
Corbett, Kotze, Viljoen, Galgut, Howard

The court held that the appellant's registered design was valid, as it was not dictated solely by function and possessed visual appeal, particularly in the fluting. The design was not anticipated by the Osborn or Ventco elements, as they were substantially different in key visual respects. However, the respondents' fascia board did not infringe the registered design, as it differed materially in the number and shape of flutes and valleys, and the degree of novelty in the appellant's design was limited, restricting the scope of protection. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, but the co…

Source excerpt

  • Registered Designs
  • Novelty And Originality
  • Anticipation
  • Infringement Test
  • Designs Act 1967
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.