South Africa Case Law

Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another v Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (017055/2025)

Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another v Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (017055/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 462 (12 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

017055/2025

Judge

Millar

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.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Distinctiveness Of Mark
• Pharmaceutical Products
• Interdict
• Registration Validity

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v Austell Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited and Another (020175/2023)

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v Austell Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited and Another (020175/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 706 (19 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

020175/2023

Judge

Meaden

The court cancelled the REZALTO trade mark and interdicted its use, finding it confusingly similar to XARELTO for identical pharmaceutical goods.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Expungement Of Registration
• Interdictory Relief
• Pharmaceutical Products
• Trade-mark-infringement

Novartis v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd (728/17)

Novartis v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd (728/17) [2018] ZASCA 64; 2018 BIP 268 (SCA) (24 May 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

728/17

Judges

Lewis, Ponnan, Leach, Saldulker, Mathopo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the marks CURIDA and CURITAZ are sufficiently similar, particularly due to the uncommon and striking prefix 'CURI', which is the dominant feature in both. The differences in the suffixes 'TAZ' and 'DA' are not sufficient to dispel the likelihood of confusion, especially considering imperfect recollection and pronunciation. The court found that the onus was on Cipla Medpro, as the applicant for registration, to prove the absence of confusion, which it failed to do. The court rejected the argument that the regulated nature of the pharmaceutical market and t…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Opposition
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Onus Of Proof
• Pharmaceutical Products

Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Limited and Another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited and Another (30763/2009)

Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Limited and Another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited and Another (30763/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 249; 2010 BIP 225 (GNP) (23 December 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30763/2009

Judge

W R C Prinsloo

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving a likelihood of confusion or deception between the trade marks 'Zetomax' and 'Zemax'. The pharmaceutical market is tightly regulated, with products dispensed only by qualified professionals, and both products have coexisted for years without any reported confusion. The evidence presented by the respondent, including expert affidavits, demonstrated that similar prefixes and suffixes are common in pharmaceutical trade marks and that the distinctive element 'ZETO' is not present in 'Zemax'. Arguments regarding confusion…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Rectification
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Pharmaceutical Products
• Onus Of Proof
• Generic Substitution

Beecham Group Plc and Others v Triomed (Pty) Ltd (100/01)

Beecham Group Plc and Others v Triomed (Pty) Ltd (100/01) [2002] ZASCA 109; [2002] 4 All SA 193 (SCA); 2003 (3) SA 639 (SCA) (19 September 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

100/01

Judges

Harms, Scott, Mpati, Conradie, Jones

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the registered shape of the Augmentin tablet was not inherently capable of distinguishing Beecham's goods from those of other manufacturers, nor had it acquired distinctiveness through use. The evidence established that the oval, bi-convex tablet shape is common in the pharmaceutical industry and serves functional purposes, such as ease of swallowing and coating. The registration of the shape mark was found to be contrary to section 10(5) of the Trade Marks Act, as the shape is necessary to obtain a specific technical result and its registration would lim…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Registration
• Distinctiveness
• Technical Functionality
• Pharmaceutical Products
• Shape Marks