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
Southern Liqueur Company Limited v Noble Spirits (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (7243/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 285 (11 July 2025)
Leave to appeal was refused in a trade mark interdict dispute about AFRULA and AMARULA, with costs awarded against the respondent.
Woodlands Dairy Proprietary Limited v Sansom Farming CC and Others (2022/056524) [2025] ZAGPPHC 298 (10 March 2025)
Court dismissed a trade mark and passing-off application over FIRST CHOICE and FRESH CHOICE dairy marks, finding the composite marks not confusingly similar.
Renian Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Crown Footwear (Pty) Ltd and Another (3898/2022) [2024] ZAKZDHC 4 (1 February 2024)
The court found that Crown Footwear (Pty) Ltd has locus standi as an 'interested person' under section 27(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, as it is substantially affected by Renian's trade mark registrations and remains the owner of the domain name overlandsa.co.za. The evidence established that Renian did not have a bona fide intention to use its trade marks in relation to camping gear and accessories, and/or clothing, footwear and accessories, nor has it actually used the marks in these categories. The specification of Renian's trade marks was overbroad and commercially incoherent in relation…
Source excerpt
Akzonobel Coatings International B.V and Another v Dumax Paints (Pty) Ltd and Others (1723/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 450; 2023 BIP 10 (FB) (9 November 2023)
The court found that the applicants' Dulux trade mark is well-known and enjoys substantial reputation and goodwill in South Africa. Although the marks Dulux and DUMAX are not identical, the respondents' use of DUMAX and DUMAX PAINTS is sufficiently similar to the Dulux mark to take unfair advantage of its distinctive character and repute. The respondents failed to provide a convincing explanation for the choice of the DUMAX mark, and the evidence showed an intention to benefit from the applicants' established brand. The court held that the requirements for relief under s 34(1)(c) of the Trade…
Source excerpt
United States Polo Association v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/021399) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1142 (30 August 2023)
The High Court refused to dismiss or stay a trademark rectification application, found lis pendens established, and granted 15 days to file an answering affidavit.
Federation Internationale de Football Association v Sedibe & Another (303/2020) [2021] ZASCA 113; [2021] 4 All SA 321 (SCA); 2021 BIP 11 (SCA); [2021] HIPR 180 (SCA) (8 September 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the attachment of FIFA's trademarks in South Africa to found jurisdiction for Sedibe's intended review of a decision taken by FIFA's Ethics Committee in Switzerland was impermissible. The attachment order was not justified because the claim was not one sounding in money nor an action in rem for movables. The review application sought to set aside an administrative decision, not to recover a monetary claim or movable property. The court found that the high court's speculation about possible future monetary claims was unfounded and irrelevant to the basis f…
Source excerpt
Red Diamond Holdings SARL v Eye of the Storm 2 (Pty) Ltd (13280/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 490; [2020] 1 All SA 829 (GJ); 2020 BIP 392 (GJ) (28 November 2019)
The court found trademark infringement for post-September 2017 Lee Cooper apparel, refused final interdictory relief, and ordered disclosure and accounting.
Puma SE v Ham Trading Enterprise CC and Others (9366/2017) [2018] ZAKZDHC 42 (24 August 2018)
The court held that, for the purposes of section 9(2)(b) of the Counterfeit Goods Act, the institution of civil proceedings is achieved by the issue of summons within the prescribed 10-day period after notice of intention to institute proceedings. Service of the summons within that period is not required. This interpretation is consistent with established precedent and the purpose of the Act, which is to prevent indefinite detention of seized goods while ensuring that suspects cannot evade proceedings by avoiding service. The court found that the plaintiff complied with the statutory requirem…
Source excerpt
United Ulama Council of South Africa v United Ulama Council of South Africa and Another (50187/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 154; 2019 BIP 79 (GP) (23 March 2017)
The High Court ordered removal of the trade mark 'United Ulama Council of South Africa', finding no bona fide proprietorship and mala fide registration.
Distell Limited v KZN Wines and Spirits CC (20291/2014) [2016] ZASCA 18; 2016 BIP 134 (SCA) (15 March 2016)
The court held that the marks BLACK KNIGHT and KNIGHTS/KNIGHT’S GOLD are sufficiently distinct in their sound, sense, and appearance, with 'black' and 'gold' being significant distinguishing features. The likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering the overall impression on the average consumer. There was no evidence of actual confusion despite years of concurrent trading, and the circumstances of purchase did not support a finding of likely deception. Consequently, the use of BLACK KNIGHT did not infringe Distell's registered trademarks under s 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks…
Source excerpt
Explore more
