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
Golden Fried Chicken (Pty) Ltd v Vlachos and Another (497/2021) [2022] ZASCA 150 (3 November 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that “Soul Souvlaki” did not infringe the registered “Soul” mark. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Yuppichef Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Yuppie Gadgets Holdings (Pty) Ltd (1088/2015) [2016] ZASCA 118; 2016 BIP 269 (SCA) (15 September 2016)
The SCA dismissed Yuppiechef’s appeal, holding that Yuppie Gadgets’ online retail use of its name did not infringe the registered mark or amount to passing off.
Golden Fried Chicken (Pty) Ltd v Soulsa CC (23619/2007) [2009] ZAGPHC 11; 2009 BIP 73 (T) (30 January 2009)
The High Court held that SOULSA is deceptively similar to the registered mark SOUL and barred its use for a restaurant.
PPI Makelaars and Another v Professional Provident Society of South Africa (249/96) [1997] ZASCA 88; [1997] 4 All SA 444 (A) (29 September 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Witwatersrand Local Division had jurisdiction to hear the trade mark infringement action, as the alleged delict occurred within its area and no statutory provision limited jurisdiction to the Transvaal Provincial Division. The definition of 'court' in the Trade Marks Act must be interpreted contextually, and the proviso allows other divisions to grant relief in infringement proceedings. On the merits, the court found that the appellants' oval logo, despite certain differences, shared dominant features with the respondent's marks—abbreviated names, cur…
Source excerpt
Tool Wholesale Holdings (Pty) Ltd. v Action Bolt (Pty) Ltd. and Another (535/88) [1990] ZASCA 135; 1991 (2) SA 80 (AD); [1991] 1 All SA 424 (A) (16 November 1990)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the registration of trade marks for 'retail and wholesale services' is not permissible under the Trade Marks Act, as the sale of goods does not constitute a service within the meaning of the Act. The ancillary activities performed by the appellant, such as providing advice and assistance to customers, are indissolubly linked to the process of selling and do not qualify as distinct services for the purposes of service mark registration. The court endorsed the reasoning in the Miele case and the Dee case, finding that the business of a retailer is the sale…
Source excerpt
Explore more
