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
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.
Takis Biltong (Pty) Ltd v Grupo Bimbo S.A.B DE C.V (A393/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 837; 2021 BIP 12 (GP); [2021] HIPR 182 (GP) (10 December 2021)
The High Court upheld an appeal in a trade mark dispute, finding TAKIS FUEGO deceptively similar to TAKIS and cancelling the respondent’s class 30 application.
Martins Of London (Pty) Ltd v The Independent Tobacco FZ CO (11534/2009) [2017] ZAGPPHC 962 (19 September 2017)
High Court trade mark opposition upheld where BUSINESS ROYALS was held confusingly similar to ROYALS for tobacco products.
McDonald's International Property Co Ltd v Gianni and Another (A566/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 226; 2007 BIP 231 (T) (4 October 2007)
The court found that the appellant failed to establish sufficient reputation in its Mc/Mac marks as at the relevant date, except for McDonald's itself. The evidence did not show use or reputation in relation to biscuits by the relevant date. The court rejected the application of the series principle under section 10(14), following Supreme Court of Appeal authority. Upon comparison, the court held that the respondent's McBiscuit mark is visually, aurally, and conceptually distinct from the appellant's marks, and that the common Mc/Mac prefix alone does not create a likelihood of confusion or d…
Source excerpt
Premier Trading Company (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sportopia (Pty) Ltd (218/97) [1999] ZASCA 48 (1 June 1999)
The court found that the appellants failed to prove a reputation in the word-mark Bladeline in Durban at the relevant time. The evidence showed that any reputation acquired was in the Jokari mark as the make, with Bladeline functioning only as a model name. The affidavits provided were contradictory and lacked direct customer evidence. The notion of a composite mark was rejected on the facts, as the marks were not used in tandem. Without proof of reputation in Bladeline, there could be no misrepresentation or passing-off. Furthermore, the differences in get-up between the products after redes…
Source excerpt
Explore more
