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
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.
LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Glencarol (Pty) Ltd (050755/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 822 (8 August 2024)
The High Court held that the respondent’s horse-and-rider device infringed LA Group’s POLO device marks and amounted to passing off in relation to socks.
Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. v Takis Biltong (293/2022) [2023] ZASCA 175; 2023 BIP 9 (SCA) (14 December 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed reconsideration of special leave in a trade mark dispute, holding TAKIS FUEGO and TAKIS LOGO were confusingly similar.
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
Basic Trade Mark S.A. v Karelia Tobacco Company Inc (39311/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 119 (17 February 2015)
The court dismissed an opposition to KAPPA’s registration in Class 34, finding no bad faith, no likelihood of confusion, and no proven tarnishment.
Verimark (Pty) Ltd v Bayerische Motoren Werke AktienGesellschaft ; Bayerische Motoren Werke AktienGesellschaft v Verimark (Pty) Ltd (250/06) [2007] ZASCA 53; 2007 (6) SA 263 (SCA); 2007 BIP 213 (SCA) (17 May 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Verimark’s use of the BMW logo in product demonstrations and packaging did not infringe BMW’s trade marks or take unfair advantage of them.
Explore more
