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
Burton's Foods Ltd v Boxer Superstores (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/124862) [2025] ZAGPPHC 650 (19 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed Burton’s Foods’ opposition to Boxer Superstores’ WHEELS DEVICE trade mark applications, finding no likely confusion with WAGON WHEELS.
Casadobe Props 60 (Pty) Ltd v Fratelli Martini Secondo Luigi SpA (759/2023) [2025] ZASCA 14 (25 February 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that CANTO and CANTI are not confusingly similar in relation to wines, and upheld the appeal against the interdict.
Gruma S.A.B De C.V. v Grupo Bimbo S.A.B De C.V. and Another (2023-133078) [2025] ZAGPPHC 30 (22 January 2025)
The High Court held that Gruma lacked standing to oppose a South African trade mark application because it had not shown a definite, present intention to trade in South Africa.
Jonsson Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Aktiebolaget, P.J Jonnson Och Soner (52169/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1091 (23 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an opposition to JONNSON registration in class 7, holding that heavy mining machinery is too dissimilar from protective clothing and footwear to cause confusion.
Lee Riders Motorcycle Club v Jacobs and Another (027612) [2024] ZAGPPHC 568 (17 May 2024)
The High Court held that the motorcycle club, not a resigned member or his NPC, was the proprietor of the Lee Riders marks and refused registration.
United States Polo Association v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (48200/18) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1139 (28 August 2023)
The court found that paragraph 5.1.7 of the Kabini affidavit, when read in context with the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, refers directly to an 'agreement' or 'valid compromise' between LA Group and Ralph Lauren. The SCA judgment itself refers to such an agreement, and it is highly improbable that such a compromise between major parties would not be reduced to writing. LA Group did not deny the existence of a written agreement. The reference in the affidavit, together with the SCA judgment, satisfies the requirement of a reference to a document under Rule 35(12). Furthermore, the agreemen…
Source excerpt
Lordship Trading Enterprises (Pty) Ltd b Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (3308/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 656 (20 November 2020)
The court found that Lordship Trading failed to demonstrate a genuine and real dispute of fact between the parties that could not be resolved on affidavit. The alleged disputes regarding sales figures, licensing arrangements, and witness credibility were internal to Lordship Trading's own evidence and did not constitute disputes between the parties. The opposition proceedings were not formally before the court, nor classified as commercial, and the application for consolidation did not comply with procedural requirements. The court held that its inherent jurisdiction under section 173 of the…
Source excerpt
Monster Energ Company v Trade Kings SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (33735/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 569 (17 October 2019)
The High Court dismissed Monster Energy’s opposition to Trade Kings’ trade mark applications, finding the marks and goods not deceptively similar.
Novartis v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd (728/17) [2018] ZASCA 64; 2018 BIP 268 (SCA) (24 May 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the marks CURIDA and CURITAZ are sufficiently similar, particularly due to the uncommon and striking prefix 'CURI', which is the dominant feature in both. The differences in the suffixes 'TAZ' and 'DA' are not sufficient to dispel the likelihood of confusion, especially considering imperfect recollection and pronunciation. The court found that the onus was on Cipla Medpro, as the applicant for registration, to prove the absence of confusion, which it failed to do. The court rejected the argument that the regulated nature of the pharmaceutical market and t…
Source excerpt
Dinnermates (TVL) CC v Piquante Brands International (Pty) Ltd and Another (401/17) [2018] ZASCA 43; 2018 BIP 260 (SCA) (28 March 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that PEPPAMATES was not confusingly similar to PEPPADEW and dismissed the trade mark opposition.
Explore more
