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
Roccat GMBH v SMD Technologies CC (27172/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 777; 2016 BIP 245 (GP) (30 August 2016)
Trade mark opposition dismissed because the rival marks were found visually, aurally, and conceptually dissimilar, so confusion was unlikely.
CCG Australasia (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cable Gland Company (Pty) Ltd (2014/42807) [2015] ZAGPJHC 249; 2015 BIP 343 (GJ) (6 November 2015)
The court found that while the marks are visually distinct when viewed side by side, the risk of confusion becomes material when the marks are viewed separately or pronounced aurally, due to imperfect recollection and the close similarity in sound. The court rejected the respondent's argument that only knowledgeable customers would purchase the products, holding that a wider class of consumers must be considered. The court concluded that the respondent's use of the marks CGCO, CG-Co, and CCGo/CGC Logo is likely to cause confusion or deception in terms of section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Ac…
Source excerpt
Yair Shimansky and Another v Browns the Diamond Store Proprietary Limited (9/2014) [2014] ZASCA 214; 2014 BIP 341 (SCA) (1 December 2014)
The court held that the marks EVOLYM and EVOLVE, when considered globally, do not resemble each other in such a way as to cause deception or confusion. The visual similarity of the first four letters is insufficient, as the remainder of the marks differ significantly. Aural similarity is not established, and conceptual similarity is absent. The average purchaser of engagement or wedding rings is careful and unlikely to be confused, given the considered nature of such purchases and the distinct meanings of the marks. The court found no infringement under section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act…
Source excerpt
Woolworths (Pty) Ltd v KR Agencies CC (4288/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 369; 2014 BIP 191 (GP) (13 June 2014)
The court found that the opposed mark's dominant 'jt' element is visually and aurally similar to Woolworths' JT ONE marks, and that the strapline does not sufficiently distinguish the marks. The likelihood of confusion is heightened by consumer tendencies to abbreviate product names and by KR's own use of abbreviations. KR's claim of honest concurrent use failed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and because use under licence does not confer rights to the licensee. The absence of evidence of actual confusion was deemed irrelevant to the legal test. Consequently, the opposed ma…
Source excerpt
Explore more
