سابق 2 / 14 التالي

Cases referred to in judgment South Africa AM Moolla Group Ltd and others v The Gap, Inc and others [2005] 3 All SA 101 (SCA) 248 Arjo Wiggins Ltd v Idem (Pty) Ltd and another [2002] 2 All SA 147 (2002 (1) SA 591) (SCA) 262 Beecham Group plc and another v Triomed (Pty) Ltd [2002] 4 All SA 193 (2003 (3) SA 639) (SCA) 261 Caterham Car Sales & Coachworks Ltd v Birkin Cars (Pty) Ltd and another [1998] 3 All SA 175 (1998 (3) SA 938) (SCA) 253 Cirota and another v Law Society, Transvaal 1979 (1) SA 172 (A) 264 Gulf Oil Corporation v Rembrandt Fabrikante en Handelaars (Edms) Bpk 1963 (2) SA 10 (T) 263 Laugh It Off Promotions CC v SA Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International [2004] 4 All SA 151 (2005 (2) SA 46) (SCA) 251 Laugh It Off Promotions CC v SA Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International 2005 (5) BCLR 743 (CC) 251 Luster Products Inc v Magic Style Sales CC [1997] 1 All SA 327 (1997 (3) SA 13) (A) 264 Mars Inc v Cadbury (Swaziland) Pty Ltd and another 2000 (4) SA 1010 (SCA) 265 McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers DriveIn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd and another [1996] 4 All SA 1 (1997 (1) SA 1) (A) 251 P Lorillard Co v Rembrandt Tobacco Co (Overseas) Ltd 1967 (4) SA 353 (T) 250 Sport Shoe (Pty) Ltd v Pep Stores SA (Pty) Ltd 1990 (1) SA 722 (A) 261 Valentino Globe BV v Phillips and another [1998] 4 All SA 1 (1998 (3) SA 775) (SCA) 264 Victoria's Secret Inc v Edgars Stores Ltd 1994 (3) SA 739 (A) 249 Page 247 of [2005] 4 All SA 245 (SCA) Australia Conagra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd 23 IPR 193; [1992] 106 ALR 465 253 Canada Orkin Exterminating Co Inc v Pestco of Canada 80 CPR (2d) 153, 11 DLR (4th) 8 European Court of Justice 253 Advocate General, The FG Jacobs, in Hölterhoff v Freiesleben (ECJ) (Case C2/00) 257 Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV Case C40/01 263 India Calvin Klein International v Apparel Syndicate [1995] RPC 515 (HC) New Zealand 253 Dominion RentACar Ltd v Budget RentACar Systems [1987] 2 NZLR 395 United Kingdom 253 Aston v Harlee Manufacturing Co (1960) 103 CLR 391 250 Glaxo Group v Dowelhurst Ltd [2000] FSR 529 261

اختر الفقرة المستهدفة3

● ● ●

Adidas AG and another v Pepkor Retail Ltd [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC)

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

خط العرض: -28.58043087631903

خط الطول: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (مرتبط Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: 9 سبتمبر 2005

Case Status: أُغلقت / إنتهت

Case Outcome Procedural

Affirmed Lower Court
Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

أمر بالتحديث
رفض منح أمر قضائي / قرار اعدادي

Keywords

Intellectual Property
Trademark Law

Judicial Body: المحكمة الاستئنافية

Court Name: WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN

Case Number: 14605/2009

Case Summary: The first applicant was the proprietor of certain well known trademarks. Products bearing those marks were marketed and sold in South Africa and globally. The respondent was a South African retail company. Seeking interdictory relief, the applicant contended that the respondent in the conduct of its business was infringing the registered trademarks and was passing off its goods as being those of applicant or as being connected in the cause of trade with the applicant. In particular, the applicants alleged that the respondent was infringing the registered trademark by the use of certain marks on footwear that was offered for sale at some of the respondent's outlets. The sale of shoes bearing the allegedly infringing marks was admitted by the respondent. The respondent argued that the registration of two of the four registered trademarks concerned "sporting footwear of all kinds" and that, except for the respondent's football boot, the other three of the respondent's shoes that were alleged to bear infringing marks were leisure shoes and not sports shoes. The respondent alleged that the marks on those three shoes could not infringe on the two registered trademarks. Held The issue between the parties concerning infringement was limited to the likelihood of deception or confusion. In terms of section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993, the question was whether the marks on the respondent's footwear were "identical" to or "so nearly resembling" the registered trademarks "as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion".The onus is on the party alleging infringement to show the likelihood of deception or confusion. The applicant had to show that a substantial number of people would probably be confused about the origin of the goods or about the connection between the offending goods and those of the registered trademark owner. Examining the products in question, against the relevant trademarks, the Court was not persuaded that when viewed against the evidence of the page 637 of [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC)wellknown association of applicants' trademarks with a 3stripe mark, the use of 2 or 4 stripes on respondent'sfootwear so nearly resembled the applicants' footwear as to be likely to cause confusion or deception among the average consumer of average intelligence with an imperfect recollection of applicants' registered trademark. Having failed on the infringement and passingoff allegations, the applicants had not established harm actually committed nor reasonably apprehended. The application for an interdict was dismissed with costs

Related Caselaw

McDonald’s Corporation v Joburgers Drive Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd and another; McDonald’s Corporatio

Related Law

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 7 نوفمبر 2019

المستندات الأولية

AM Moolla Group Ltd and others v The GAP Inc and others [2005] 4 All SA 245 (SCA).pdf
English
تحميل عرض

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

اختر الفقرة المستهدفة3

Adidas AG and another v Pepkor Retail Ltd [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC)

المستندات الأولية

Notifications