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.
Stable Brands v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (33268/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 136 (21 February 2020)
The court held that the application for leave to appeal must fail because the applicant did not raise new grounds in the notice of application for leave to appeal and failed to formally amend the notice. The applicant did not discharge its onus regarding use and distinctiveness of the trade marks, nor did it provide evidence sufficient to challenge the findings made in the original judgment. Joinder of The Polo/Lauren Company LP was unnecessary as that party did not have a substantial interest in the order. The court found no merit in the constitutional argument regarding arbitrary deprivatio…
Source excerpt
Morris Material Handling Limited v Morris Material Handling SA (Pty) Ltd (829/2017) [2018] ZASCA 67; 2018 BIP 278 (SCA) (25 May 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against expungement proceedings, holding that the appellant failed to prove bona fide use of the MORRIS trade mark.
Tekno-Medical Optik Chirurgie GMBH v Registrar of Trade Marks and Another (2015/59773) [2017] ZAGPPHC 609; 2017 BIP 119 (GP) (13 September 2017)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against an order cancelling the TEKNO trade mark registration and expunging it from the register.
Tekno-Medical Optik Chirurgie GMBH v Registrar of Trade Marks and Another (2015/59773) [2017] ZAGPPHC 404; 2017 BIP 106 (GP) (28 July 2017)
The court found that the applicant had established extensive use and reputation in the 'TEKNO' trade mark in South Africa prior to the second respondent's registration. The second respondent and its predecessors acted as distributors of the applicant's products and did not originate, acquire, or adopt the mark independently. The respondent's claim to proprietorship was unsupported by objective evidence and contradicted by the applicant's documented sales and agency arrangements. The court rejected the respondent's defences of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence, finding no unequivocal conduct…
Source excerpt
Westminster Tobacco (Pty) Ltd v Philip Morris Products S.A. and Others (925/2015) [2017] ZASCA 10; [2017] 2 All SA 389 (SCA); 2017 BIP 74 (SCA) (16 March 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Westminster Tobacco’s limited PARLIAMENT cigarette sales were bona fide trade mark use and dismissed expungement.
Global Vitality Incorporated v Enzyme Process Africa (Pty) Limited and Others (20884/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 111; 2015 BIP 520 (WCC) (21 August 2015)
The applicant established substantial reputation and goodwill in the ENZYME PROCESS trade mark in South Africa since 1995, predating any involvement by the respondents. The respondents' use of the ENZYME PROCESS mark and similar marks, including on goods not supplied by the applicant, was likely to cause confusion and deception among customers. The trade mark registrations by the second respondent were made without bona fide claim to proprietorship and in bad faith, warranting cancellation under the Trade Marks Act. The first respondent's company name, ENZYME PROCESS AFRICA, is confusingly si…
Source excerpt
Philip Morris Products S.A. v Westminster Tobacco Co. (Cape Town and London) (Pty) Ltd and Another (2644/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 593; 2015 BIP 285 (GP) (6 August 2015)
The court found that the respondent failed to prove bona fide use of the PARLIAMENT trade marks during the relevant five-year period. Although BATSA, as a subsidiary, manufactured and sold Parliament cigarettes and used promotional materials, the evidence showed that these activities were limited in duration and scope, and were primarily intended to disrupt competitors and protect BATSA's main brand, Peter Stuyvesant, rather than to establish Parliament as a commercially viable product in its own right. The launches were tactical and not aimed at genuine commercial trade in Parliament cigaret…
Source excerpt
Union-Swiss (Pty) Ltd v Bio-Cream Cosmetics CC; Union-Swiss (Pty) Ltd v Bio-Cream Cosmetics CC; Union-Swiss (Pty) Ltd v Bio-Cream Cosmetics CC and Another (56526/12, 2521/13, 54314/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1051; 2015 BIP 494 (GP) (17 July 2015)
The court found BIO-LOTION’s get-up and mark likely to confuse consumers with BIO-OIL, granted passing-off relief, and ordered expungement of the BIO-LOTION registration.
Pandora A/S v Truworths Ltd (72261/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 389; 2015 BIP 268 (GP) (3 June 2015)
An expungement application failed because Truworths proved bona fide use of ESSENCE on Class 14 goods, including detachable jewellery sold with garments.
Explore more
