South Africa Case Law

First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc and Another (118/02)

First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc and Another (118/02) [2003] ZASCA 12; [2003] 2 All SA 1 (SCA); 2003 (4) SA 337 (SCA); 2003 BIP 72 (SCA) (14 March 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

118/02

Judges

Harms, Zulman, Conradie, Jones, Shongwe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'Premier' and 'Premier Package' are not inherently distinctive as trade marks in relation to banking and credit card services or cheques. The evidence presented by FNB failed to demonstrate that the marks had acquired distinctiveness through use at the relevant date. The use of 'Premier' was primarily adjectival and descriptive, not functioning as a trade mark in the sense required by the Act. Furthermore, the marks are reasonably required for use in the trade by other banks and financial institutions, making them ineligible for registration under section…

Source excerpt

• Trade Marks Act 1963
• Distinctiveness Of Trade Marks
• Laudatory Epithets
• Registration Requirements
• Reasonable Requirement For Use In Trade

Levi Strauss & Co v Coconut Trouser Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd (274/99)

Levi Strauss & Co v Coconut Trouser Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd (274/99) [2001] ZASCA 60; [2001] 4 All SA 1 (A); 2001 (3) SA 1285 (SCA) (17 May 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

274/99

Judges

Harms, Schutz, Farlam, Mthiyane, Chetty

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that substitution of a trade mark applicant could not retrospectively create rights or cure lack of intention to use.

• Trade Marks Act 1963
• Proprietorship Of Trade Mark
• Priority Of Application
• Amendment And Substitution
• Intention To Use
• Retrospective Effect

Mars Incorporated v Cadbury (Swaziland) (Pty) Ltd. and Another (427/98)

Mars Incorporated v Cadbury (Swaziland) (Pty) Ltd. and Another (427/98) [2000] ZASCA 36; 2000 (4) SA 1010 (SCA) (8 September 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

427/98

Judges

Harms, Marais, Plewman, Melunsky, Mpati

The court held Cadbury’s defensive trade marks could not be attacked on grounds going to their original registration after seven years, and dismissed Mars’s appeal.

• Defensive Trade Marks
• Trade Marks Act 1963
• Trade Marks Act 1993
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Statutory Passing Off
• Defensive-trade-marks