ICollege (Pty) Ltd v Xcellence Skills Development and Mentorship CC and Another (40105/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 463 (19 July 2021)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
40105/2019
Judge
Basson
The court found that while both parties use the 'iCollege' mark in relation to education and training services, the applicant failed to prove that the respondent's use is likely to deceive or cause confusion among a substantial number of notional customers. The word 'college' is a commonplace, descriptive term, and the addition of the prefix 'i' does not render it distinctive enough to serve as a badge of origin. The applicant did not provide evidence of actual confusion or demonstrate that the respondent's services are materially connected to its own. The differences in teaching methods, acc…
Cochrane Steel Products (Pty) Ltd v Jumalu Fencing (Pty) Ltd (18/46386) [2021] ZAGPJHC 54 (27 January 2021)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
18/46386
Judge
Lombard
The High Court granted Cochrane Steel Products leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal after finding a reasonable prospect of success on the services-mark issue.
Open Horizon Ltd v Carnilinx (Pty) Ltd (66901/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 674; 2020 BIP 415 (GP) (20 November 2020)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
66901/2019
Judge
W Hughes
The High Court dismissed a trade mark infringement claim over PACIFIC and ATLANTIC cigarette marks, finding no actionable confusion and no monopoly in ocean-themed names.
Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha t/a honda Motor Co Ltd v Big Boy Scooters (24784/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 752 (15 November 2017)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
24784/2016
Judge
Hughes
The court found that the threshold for granting leave to appeal has been elevated under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Both parties presented arguments asserting reasonable prospects of success. The respondent's application for leave to appeal was granted only on the narrow issue of the section 34(4) enquiry regarding royalties, as this issue was not moot and could have practical effect. The applicant's cross-appeal was granted based on reasonable prospects of success regarding the findings in paragraphs 55 and 56 of the original judgment. Costs of both applications are to be costs…
Safika Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Safika Office for Automation (39786/2005) [2015] ZAGPPHC 859; 2016 BIP 116 (GP) (11 December 2015)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
39786/2005
Judge
R G Tolmay
The High Court granted interdictory relief to Safika Holdings, finding the respondent’s SAFIKA use infringed registered marks and that section 36 and delay defences failed.
CCG Australasia (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cable Gland Company (Pty) Ltd (2014/42807) [2015] ZAGPJHC 249; 2015 BIP 343 (GJ) (6 November 2015)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2014/42807
Judge
Roland Sutherland
The court found that while the marks are visually distinct when viewed side by side, the risk of confusion becomes material when the marks are viewed separately or pronounced aurally, due to imperfect recollection and the close similarity in sound. The court rejected the respondent's argument that only knowledgeable customers would purchase the products, holding that a wider class of consumers must be considered. The court concluded that the respondent's use of the marks CGCO, CG-Co, and CCGo/CGC Logo is likely to cause confusion or deception in terms of section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Ac…
National Brands Ltd v Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd (228/99) [2001] ZASCA 17; 2001 (3) SA 563 (SCA) (16 March 2001)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
228/99
Judges
Hefer, Harms, Zulman, Mpati, Nugent
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Romantic Dreams did not infringe Romany Creams. The marks were not likely to confuse consumers and the appeal was dismissed.
