Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Intellectual Property [2017] ZAGPPHC 8

Arbiter Di Marciano Alfonso & C.S.N.C. v Adamo Exclusive Mens Wear CC t/a Papoutsi (45297/2014)

Arbiter Di Marciano Alfonso & C.S.N.C. v Adamo Exclusive Mens Wear CC t/a Papoutsi (45297/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 8 (16 January 2017)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
45297/2014
Judge
A.A. Louw

The court found the applicant's evidence regarding the well-known status of the ARBITER trade mark in South Africa to be vague, sketchy, and lacking in detail. The applicant failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence of sales, market penetration, or reputation outside Gauteng, nor did it present a market survey or other reliable indicators of recognisability. As a result, the requirements of section 35 of the Trade Marks Act were not satisfied. The same evidentiary deficiencies applied to the passing off claim, as there was insufficient proof of reputation or goodwill in South Africa. C…

Source excerpt

  • Well Known Trade Mark
  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Passing Off
  • Paris Convention
  • Section 35 Trade Marks Act
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2015] ZACT 59

National Academy of Recording Arts and Music Inc. v Africa Grammy Award (Pty) Ltd (CT001Feb2015)

National Academy of Recording Arts and Music Inc. v Africa Grammy Award (Pty) Ltd (CT001Feb2015) [2015] ZACT 59 (23 July 2015)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
CT001Feb2015
Judge
K Tootla

The Tribunal found that the First Respondent's company name 'AFRICA GRAMMY AWARDS' is not identical to the Applicant's 'GRAMMY' trade mark, thus Section 11(2)(a)(iii) does not apply. However, the name is confusingly similar and likely to mislead the public into believing an association exists, contravening Sections 11(2)(b)(iii) and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Companies Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the test is whether the ordinary reasonable careful person would be confused or misled, and found that the Respondent's intent to associate with the Applicant was evident. The Tribunal does not have ju…

Source excerpt

  • Company Name Dispute
  • Trade Mark Confusion
  • Well Known Trade Mark
  • Companies Act Section 11
  • Memorandum Of Incorporation
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.