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 [2025] ZAWCHC 170

Adcock Ingram Limited and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited (10455/2023)

Adcock Ingram Limited and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited (10455/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 170 (17 April 2025)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
10455/2023
Judge
Lekhuleni

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

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Passing Off
  • Unlawful Competition
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Pharmaceutical Regulation
  • Generic Substitution
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2012] ZASCA 39

Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd and Another (265/2011)

Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd and Another (265/2011) [2012] ZASCA 39; 2012 (4) SA 238 (SCA); [2012] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2012 BIP 113 (SCA) (29 March 2012)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
265/2011
Judges
Farlam, Nugent, Malan, Wallis, Petse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trade marks ZEMAX and ZETOMAX are confusingly similar, both visually and phonetically, and that their registration in respect of a broad class of goods creates a reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception among a substantial number of consumers. The court rejected the narrow approach limiting the relevant consumer to medical practitioners and pharmacists, finding that patients are also part of the notional consumer, especially in light of statutory provisions granting patients a participatory role in generic substitution decisions. The court foun…

Source excerpt

  • Trade Mark Expungement
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Generic Substitution
  • Pharmaceutical Regulation
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.