South Africa Case Law

Yossi Barel v Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023)

Yossi Barel v Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (23 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1102/2023

Judges

Hughes, Kgoele, Unterhalter, Coppin, Bloem

The majority held that counterfeiting under South African law requires more than mere trademark infringement; it demands a deliberate and fraudulent intent to deceive or pass off goods as those of another. Popular Trading's goods were authentic, sourced directly from the original Italian manufacturer, and lacked any intent to deceive the public or pass off the goods as those of Mr Barel. The evidence did not establish that Popular Trading intended its goods to be confused with or taken as being Mr Barel's goods. Mere knowledge of Mr Barel's trademark registration did not convert the continued…

Source excerpt

• Counterfeit Goods Act
• Trade Mark Infringement
• Mens Rea In Counterfeiting
• Search And Seizure
• Deliberate Infringement

Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another v Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (017055/2025)

Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Group and Another v Adcock Ingram Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Others (017055/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 462 (12 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

017055/2025

Judge

Millar

The High Court held that LENBUCOD infringed the MYBUCOD trade mark for a pharmaceutical product because the shared BUCOD element was likely to confuse consumers and pharmacists.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Distinctiveness Of Mark
• Pharmaceutical Products
• Interdict
• Registration Validity

Adcock Ingram Limited and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited (10455/2023)

Adcock Ingram Limited and Others v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Limited (10455/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 170 (17 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10455/2023

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court found that the applicants' URIZONE trade mark and the respondent's FURIZOME trade mark are both invented words used for identical pharmaceutical products treating urinary tract infections. The dominant elements of both marks are strikingly similar in visual, aural, and conceptual respects, with only minor differences in their prefixes and suffixes. The court held that these differences are insignificant and that the overall impression created by the marks is such that a substantial number of consumers, including patients, doctors, and pharmacists, are likely to be deceived or confus…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Unlawful Competition
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Pharmaceutical Regulation
• Generic Substitution

Unjani Clinic NPC v Yeko and Others (2023/132730)

Unjani Clinic NPC v Yeko and Others (2023/132730) [2025] ZAGPJHC 146 (17 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/132730

Judge

Wright

In an opposed trade mark application, the High Court granted relief where four respondents withdrew opposition and the others did not appear after service.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Opposed Motion
• Withdrawal Of Opposition
• Trade-mark-infringement
• Opposed-motion
• Withdrawal-of-opposition

Solo Foods Sales and Distrubutions (Pty) Limited v Kalinda Trading CC and Others (37574/2021)

Solo Foods Sales and Distrubutions (Pty) Limited v Kalinda Trading CC and Others (37574/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 752 (12 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

37574/2021

Judge

Gotz AJ

The High Court granted Solo Foods an interdict over the VITA NUTS mark and dismissed Kalinda Trading’s counterapplication to cancel VITA NUT.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Trade Mark Registration
• Counterfeit Goods Act
• Passing Off
• Interdict
• Reputation And Goodwill

African National Congress v Umkhonto Wesizwe Party and Another (D153/2024)

African National Congress v Umkhonto Wesizwe Party and Another (D153/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 50 (8 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D153/2024

Judge

Chetty

The court found that, having considered the arguments and the principles applicable to leave to appeal, another court could reasonably differ on the findings regarding jurisdiction, locus standi, and the merits of the trade mark infringement dispute. The matter raises significant public interest and novel legal issues with national implications for the parties and their members. Accordingly, the court was satisfied that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success and that there were compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Jurisdiction
• Urgent Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Superior Courts Act

LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Glencarol (Pty) Ltd (050755/2022)

LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Glencarol (Pty) Ltd (050755/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 822 (8 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

050755/2022

Judge

Neukircher

The High Court held that the respondent’s horse-and-rider device infringed LA Group’s POLO device marks and amounted to passing off in relation to socks.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Passing Off
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Well Known Mark Protection
• Device Mark Similarity
• Unfair Advantage

GWB Concrete Walling CC and Others v CJB Concrete Walling CC and Others (2022-059229)

GWB Concrete Walling CC and Others v CJB Concrete Walling CC and Others (2022-059229) [2024] ZAGPJHC 707 (6 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-059229

Judge

Adams

The High Court dismissed exceptions to pleadings in a trade mark and contract dispute, holding the plaintiffs had pleaded enough to disclose causes of action.

• Exceptions To Pleadings
• Trade Mark Infringement
• Co Existence Agreement
• Contract Interpretation
• Declaratory Relief
• Costs Award

My-China Discount Store (Pty) Ltd v Mosese and Others (076084/2023)

My-China Discount Store (Pty) Ltd v Mosese and Others (076084/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 756 (24 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

076084/2023

Judge

M P Motha

The High Court set aside a Counterfeit Goods Act search-and-seizure warrant because the complaint affidavit did not support the trademark and copyright rights listed in the warrant.

• Counterfeit Goods Act
• Search And Seizure Warrant
• Trade Mark Infringement
• Copyright Infringement
• Ex Parte Applications
• Counterfeit-goods-act

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v Austell Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited and Another (020175/2023)

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v Austell Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited and Another (020175/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 706 (19 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

020175/2023

Judge

Meaden

The court cancelled the REZALTO trade mark and interdicted its use, finding it confusingly similar to XARELTO for identical pharmaceutical goods.

• Trade Mark Infringement
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Expungement Of Registration
• Interdictory Relief
• Pharmaceutical Products
• Trade-mark-infringement