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
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.
Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v Austell Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited and Another (020175/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1106 (22 October 2024)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success, no conflicting judgments, and no compelling reason to send the matter to the SCA.
Solo Foods Sales and Distrubutions (Pty) Limited v Kalinda Trading CC and Others (37574/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 752 (12 August 2024)
The High Court granted Solo Foods an interdict over the VITA NUTS mark and dismissed Kalinda Trading’s counterapplication to cancel VITA NUT.
National Brands Limited v Cape Cookies CC and Another (309/2022 ; 567/2022) [2023] ZASCA 93; 2023] 3 All SA 363 (SCA); 2024 (2) SA 296 (SCA); 2023 BIP 7 (SCA) (12 June 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 10(17) of the Trade Marks Act is not limited to non-similar goods and applies to similar goods as well. The court found that SNACKCRAX is similar to SALTICRAX, with 'CRAX' being a distinctive and dominant component not shown to be a common or descriptive term. The evidence established that SALTICRAX is a well-known mark with significant reputation and goodwill. The court concluded that registration of SNACKCRAX would likely take unfair advantage of the distinctive character and repute of SALTICRAX, as Cape Cookies would benefit from National Brand…
Source excerpt
Roselt and Another v Bouwa Machinery South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (29672/2021 ; 30201/21) [2023] ZAGPJHC 576; 2023 BIP 4 (GJ) (25 May 2023)
The High Court confirmed BOUWA trade mark registrations, interdicted the respondents from using the mark, and dismissed claims of oral assignment and expungement.
LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another (650/2020) [2022] ZASCA 161 (25 November 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal amended its earlier trade mark order to correct a patent error in the registration number from 2013 to 2014.
3rd Level Marketing and Media Group (Pty) Ltd v South African Broadcasting Corporation Ltd (47204/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 130; [2022] HIPR 187 (GP) (2 March 2022)
The High Court dismissed a trademark removal application after finding the applicant failed to establish locus standi as an interested person.
National Brands Limited v Cape Cookies CC and Another (24206/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 863; 2021 BIP 13 (GP); [2021] HIPR 196 (GP) (20 December 2021)
The court found that National Brands Limited failed to establish that the SNACKCRAX trade mark is inherently deceptive or likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers. The evidence of actual confusion was insufficient, and years of parallel trading without widespread confusion supported the conclusion that the marks are not identical or sufficiently similar to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods. The CRAX element was not found to be distinctive enough to confer exclusivity, and the overall visual, aural, and conceptual differences between SALTICRAX and SNACKCRAX were signi…
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.
Cochrane Steel Products (Pty) Ltd v M-Systems Group (1272/2016) [2017] ZASCA 189; 2017 BIP 134 (SCA) (13 December 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that neither Cochrane nor any other trader is entitled to exclusive rights over the ordinary English words 'clear' and 'view', which constitute the composite mark 'CLEARVU'. These words are commonly used descriptively in the fencing industry, and the registration of the mark should not inhibit their bona fide use by others. The court affirmed that the imposition of a disclaimer and admission, as ordered by the court below, was warranted to prevent unjustified monopolies and to ensure fair competition. The court amended paragraph 1.2 of the order by deleting th…
Source excerpt
Explore more
