South Africa Case Law

Pexmart CC and Others v H. Mocke Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (159/2018)

Pexmart CC and Others v H. Mocke Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (159/2018) [2018] ZASCA 175; [2019] 1 All SA 335 (SCA); 2019 (3) SA 117 (SCA); 2018 BIP 345 (SCA); [2018] 2 CPLR 440 (SCA) (3 December 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

159/2018

Judges

Navsa, Lewis, Mocumie, Molemela, Makgoka

The SCA dismissed an unlawful competition appeal involving pipe-lining technology, holding that the appellants misused confidential know-how and trade secrets.

• Unlawful Competition
• Misuse Of Confidential Information
• Trade Secrets
• Reverse Engineering
• Licensing Agreements
• Unlawful-competition

H Mocke Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Pexmart CC and Others (58201/2014)

H Mocke Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Pexmart CC and Others (58201/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 718; 2017 BIP 212 (GP) (13 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58201/2014

Judge

Louw

The High Court held that the respondents used a deformer process identical in substance to the applicants’ licensed Sureline process and that the know-how was protectable confidential information.

• Confidential Information
• Unlawful Competition
• Trade Secrets
• Reverse Engineering
• Licensee Rights
• Restraint Of Trade

Georges Briere SA v Mthimunye Engineering Works CC and Others (2518/2011)

Georges Briere SA v Mthimunye Engineering Works CC and Others (2518/2011) [2012] ZAKZDHC 24 (15 May 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

2518/2011

Judge

Mbatha

The court granted relief for copyright infringement over performance graphs, but refused passing-off and unlawful competition claims about similar pumps.

• Copyright Infringement
• Passing Off
• Unlawful Competition
• Trade Mark
• Reverse Engineering
• Copyright-infringement

Van der Merwe and Another v Els and Another (3279/08)

Van der Merwe and Another v Els and Another (3279/08) [2008] ZAWCHC 31; 2008 BIP 404 (C) (4 June 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3279/08

Judge

B M Griesel

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a clear or prima facie right to restrain the respondents from manufacturing and selling the disputed catamarans. The relevant patents had expired, placing the designs in the public domain, and section 15(3A) of the Copyright Act specifically authorises reverse engineering of utilitarian objects. The applicants' investment in the design was limited, and the intellectual property largely belonged to Prof Hoppe, not the applicants. The partnership had not built up substantial goodwill or a commercially sustainable business in the 25 foot Hys…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Competition
• Reverse Engineering
• Copyright Infringement
• Passing Off
• Industrial Designs
• Patent Expiry

Dexion Europe Ltd. v Universal Storage Systems (Pty) Ltd. (500/2000)

Dexion Europe Ltd. v Universal Storage Systems (Pty) Ltd. (500/2000) [2002] ZASCA 97; [2002] 4 All SA 67 (SCA); 2003 (1) SA 31 (SCA) (6 September 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

500/2000

Judges

Harms, Schutz, Scott, Cameron, Heher

The court rejected a copyright claim over technical drawings, finding no proved indirect copying and holding that the reverse-engineering exception applied to the footplate.

• Copyright Infringement
• Reverse Engineering
• Indirect Copying
• Contractual Obligation
• Copyright-infringement
• Technical-drawings

Klep Values (Pty) Ltd. v Saunders Value Company Ltd. (493/84/av)

Klep Values (Pty) Ltd. v Saunders Value Company Ltd. (493/84/av) [1986] ZASCA 157; [1987] 4 All SA 147 (AD (15 December 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

493/84/AV

Judges

Corbett, Joubert, Grosskopf, Galgut, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that engineering drawings, even if technical and utilitarian, qualify as 'artistic works' under the 1911 British Copyright Act as incorporated in South African law. The originality requirement is satisfied where the draughtsman applies skill and labour, even if the design is a team effort or based on earlier works, provided the drawings are not slavish copies. The evidence established that the respondent's drawings were original and that copyright subsisted in them. The 1948 agreement validly assigned copyright from the predecessor company to the respondent. T…

Source excerpt

• Copyright In Engineering Drawings
• Reverse Engineering
• Assignment Of Copyright
• Trade Mark Infringement
• Originality Requirement
• Design Registration Exclusion