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.
Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another v Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (017055/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 462 (12 May 2025)
The High Court held that LENBUCOD infringed the MYBUCOD trade mark for a pharmaceutical product because the shared BUCOD element was likely to confuse consumers and pharmacists.
Adcock Ingram Limited and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited (10455/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 170 (17 April 2025)
The court found that the applicants' URIZONE trade mark and the respondent's FURIZOME trade mark are both invented words used for identical pharmaceutical products treating urinary tract infections. The dominant elements of both marks are strikingly similar in visual, aural, and conceptual respects, with only minor differences in their prefixes and suffixes. The court held that these differences are insignificant and that the overall impression created by the marks is such that a substantial number of consumers, including patients, doctors, and pharmacists, are likely to be deceived or confus…
Source excerpt
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.
Casadobe Props 60 (Pty) Ltd v Fratelli Martini Secondo Luigi SpA (759/2023) [2025] ZASCA 14 (25 February 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that CANTO and CANTI are not confusingly similar in relation to wines, and upheld the appeal against the interdict.
Jonsson Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Aktiebolaget, P.J Jonnson Och Soner (52169/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1091 (23 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an opposition to JONNSON registration in class 7, holding that heavy mining machinery is too dissimilar from protective clothing and footwear to cause confusion.
LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Glencarol (Pty) Ltd (050755/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 822 (8 August 2024)
The High Court held that the respondent’s horse-and-rider device infringed LA Group’s POLO device marks and amounted to passing off in relation to socks.
Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v Austell Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited and Another (020175/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 706 (19 July 2024)
The court cancelled the REZALTO trade mark and interdicted its use, finding it confusingly similar to XARELTO for identical pharmaceutical goods.
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
Explore more
