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
Tequila Cuervo SA de CV v Fabrication and Light Engineering CC (99935/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 10; 2017 BIP 68 (GP) (20 January 2017)
The High Court held that IL CORVO was not confusingly similar to CUERVO or JOSE CUERVO, and dismissed the trademark opposition with costs.
Lotte Confectionary Co Ltd v Orion Corporation (49422/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 316; 2015 BIP 224 (GP) (1 April 2015)
The court found that the evidence presented by the applicant did not establish that the registration of the CHOCOPIE mark was wrongly made in 1996, as the evidence did not reach back to the relevant date and the presumption of validity under section 51 applied. However, the court held that subsequent to registration, the mark had lost its distinctiveness due to widespread and extensive use of 'choco' and 'chocopie' by other traders in South Africa. The respondent failed to protect its interests, and the mark was no longer capable of distinguishing the goods of the proprietor. The requirements…
Source excerpt
Kansai Plascon (Pty) Ltd v Duram (Pty) Ltd (38106/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 44; 2015 BIP 202 (GP) (29 January 2015)
The High Court upheld an opposition to registering “DTM” as a trade mark, finding the term generic and not capable of distinguishing the respondent’s goods.
Fuchs Petrolub AG v Castrol Limited and Another (35631/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1031; 2014 BIP 302 (GP) (4 December 2014)
The court found that Castrol's mark 'TITANIUM FLUID STRENGTH TECHNOLOGY' is a composite mark and must be considered in its entirety when compared to Fuchs's 'TITAN' mark. The comparison should not be limited to the dominant element 'TITANIUM'. On a global appreciation of the marks, there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception between 'TITAN' and 'TITANIUM FLUID STRENGTH TECHNOLOGY', either visually, phonetically, or conceptually. The court also found that even if the comparison were limited to 'TITAN' and 'TITANIUM', the words are sufficiently distinct in meaning, appearance, a…
Source excerpt
Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L. v N V Sumatra Tobacco Trading CO and Another (26816/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 963; 2014 BIP 265 (GP) (17 November 2014)
The High Court dismissed Philip Morris Brands’ opposition to the KING logo trademark, finding no proven reputation in the packaging alone and no confusing similarity.
Explore more
