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
Applebite Roadhouse (PTY) Limited and Others v Apple Bite (PTY) Limited Another (47010/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 706 (20 September 2022)
High Court passing-off case over the “Applebite” restaurant name and logo. The court found goodwill, likely confusion, and granted an interdict and related relief.
Incledon Cape (Pty) Ltd v DPI Plastics (Pty) Ltd (5850/07) [2009] ZAWCHC 182; 2009 BIP 397 (WCC) (19 November 2009)
High Court passing-off case where Incledon Cape obtained a permanent interdict against DPI Plastics for using Incledon DPI in the Western Cape.
Alliance Property Group (Pty) Ltd v Alliance Group Ltd (8828/2007) [2009] ZAKZPHC 31; 2009 BIP 412 (KZP) (20 June 2009)
The court dismissed a passing-off application, finding no protectable exclusive reputation in the descriptive word “Alliance” and no likelihood of confusion.
Learn to Drice CC v Van De Weg (133/07) [2007] ZAECHC 86 (7 August 2007)
The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the trade name 'Learn to Drive' had acquired a secondary meaning distinctive of its business in the minds of the public. The words are generally descriptive and not inherently distinctive. The evidence did not establish that the public associated the words exclusively with the applicant's business, nor was there proof of actual or likely confusion. The advertisements and business practices of both parties were sufficiently distinguishable, and the applicant's reputation did not extend to exclusive rights in the descriptive words. Consequ…
Source excerpt
Rive and Another v Joubert and Others (743/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 161 (19 August 2004)
The court found that the applicants had, on a balance of probabilities, established a clear right to use the vendor codes and trade name Forceflo, stemming from three written agreements and the conduct of the parties. The respondents' actions in misrepresenting themselves as representatives of the second applicant and contacting its clients constituted wrongful interference with the applicants' business and breached contractual rights. The applicants demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of harm and had no alternative effective remedy. The court confirmed the provisional order as a final int…
Source excerpt
Explore more
