South Africa Case Law

South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union v Bargaining Council for the Furniture Manufacturing Industry - KwaZulu-Natal and Others (DA9/22)

South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union v Bargaining Council for the Furniture Manufacturing Industry - KwaZulu-Natal and Others (DA9/22) [2024] ZALAC 20; (2024) 45 ILJ 1596 (LAC); [2024] 9 BLLR 976 (LAC) (2 May 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA9/22

Judges

Waglay JP, Coppin JA, Savage AJA

The majority (Savage AJA, Waglay JP concurring) held that the appellant union's constitution expressly permitted the National Office Bearers or National Executive Committee to define additional industries as falling within its scope by resolution. The resolution demarcating the furniture industry as an 'other' interest group was made in terms of the registered constitution and did not constitute an amendment or change to the constitution as contemplated by section 101 of the Labour Relations Act. Therefore, no registration of the resolution was required, and the union was entitled to recruit…

Source excerpt

• Trade Union Scope
• Constitution Amendment
• Registration Requirements
• Organisational Rights
• Interpretation Of Union Constitutions

Monster Energ Company v Trade Kings SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (33735/18)

Monster Energ Company v Trade Kings SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (33735/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 569 (17 October 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33735/18

Judge

C J Van Der Westhuizen

The High Court dismissed Monster Energy’s opposition to Trade Kings’ trade mark applications, finding the marks and goods not deceptively similar.

• Trade Mark Opposition
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Distinctiveness
• Well Known Marks
• Registration Requirements
• Paris Convention

National Home Builders Registration Council v Adendorf and Others (406/2018)

National Home Builders Registration Council v Adendorf and Others (406/2018) [2019] ZASCA 20; 2019 (5) SA 317 (SCA) (26 March 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

406/2018

Judges

Leach, Saldulker, Mbha, Dlodlo, Eksteen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act is consumer-protection legislation intended to apply broadly to all entities engaged in home building, including trusts. Although the Act does not define 'person', its provisions, particularly sections 9 and 21, explicitly reference trusts and trustees, indicating legislative intent to include trusts within its ambit. The purpose of the Act is to protect housing consumers and ensure minimum standards in the home building industry. Excluding trusts would undermine these objectives and result in arbitrary and un…

Source excerpt

• Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act
• Definition Of Person
• Trusts In Property Development
• Registration Requirements
• Consumer Protection
• Statutory Interpretation

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v KR Agencies CC (4288/14)

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v KR Agencies CC (4288/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 369; 2014 BIP 191 (GP) (13 June 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4288/14

Judge

J W Louw

The court found that the opposed mark's dominant 'jt' element is visually and aurally similar to Woolworths' JT ONE marks, and that the strapline does not sufficiently distinguish the marks. The likelihood of confusion is heightened by consumer tendencies to abbreviate product names and by KR's own use of abbreviations. KR's claim of honest concurrent use failed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and because use under licence does not confer rights to the licensee. The absence of evidence of actual confusion was deemed irrelevant to the legal test. Consequently, the opposed ma…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Opposition
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Honest Concurrent Use
• Visual And Aural Similarity
• Registration Requirements

Vericon Outsourcing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (59156/08)

Vericon Outsourcing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (59156/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 30 (12 April 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

59156/08

Judge

B.R. Southwood

The court found, on the facts presented and not seriously disputed, that the applicant's employees perform functions that amount to safeguarding property against theft and other criminal acts at client premises. Their activities, including controlling access, conducting searches, supervising security measures, and reporting to client security controllers, fall within the statutory definition of 'security services'. Accordingly, both the applicant and its employees are required to register as security service providers and comply with the Act and its Code of Conduct. The applicant failed to ma…

Source excerpt

• Private Security Industry Regulation Act
• Declaratory Relief
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Registration Requirements
• Exemption From Statutory Obligations

Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Another v Association of Independent Contractors and Another (127/2004)

Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Another v Association of Independent Contractors and Another (127/2004) [2005] ZASCA 32; [2007] 1 All SA 221 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 416 (SCA) (31 March 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

127/2004

Judges

Howie, Streicher, Mthiyane, Conradie, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the association and its executive officer were security service providers under the Act and had to register.

• Private Security Industry Regulation Act
• Statutory Interpretation
• Registration Requirements
• Independent Contractor Status
• Interdict
• Executive Control

First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc and Another (118/02)

First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc and Another (118/02) [2003] ZASCA 12; [2003] 2 All SA 1 (SCA); 2003 (4) SA 337 (SCA); 2003 BIP 72 (SCA) (14 March 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

118/02

Judges

Harms, Zulman, Conradie, Jones, Shongwe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'Premier' and 'Premier Package' are not inherently distinctive as trade marks in relation to banking and credit card services or cheques. The evidence presented by FNB failed to demonstrate that the marks had acquired distinctiveness through use at the relevant date. The use of 'Premier' was primarily adjectival and descriptive, not functioning as a trade mark in the sense required by the Act. Furthermore, the marks are reasonably required for use in the trade by other banks and financial institutions, making them ineligible for registration under section…

Source excerpt

• Trade Marks Act 1963
• Distinctiveness Of Trade Marks
• Laudatory Epithets
• Registration Requirements
• Reasonable Requirement For Use In Trade