(Cloete, Heher, Combrinck and Cachalia JJA concurred in the judgment of Harms ADP.)
For the appellant:
RBR Wheeldon instructed by Ron Wheeldon Attorneys, Hahn & Hahn, Webber Attorneys
For the respondent:
CE Puckrin SC instructed by R Michau, Adams & Adams, Honey Attorneys
Footnotes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cf Berman Brothers (Pty) Ltd v Sodastream Ltd 1986 (3) SA 209 (A) at 232H233A.
Verimark (Pty) Ltd v BMW AG [2007] SCA 53 (RSA) para 5. [Also reported at [2007] JOL 19890 (SCA) Ed].
Verimark (Pty) Ltd v BMW AG para 8.
TM 79/06501, TM 98/17028, and TM84/01620 respectively.
The somewhat faint argument that there is no evidence that windscreens may be registered in class 12 need not be
considered.
Prestonettes Inc v Coty 263 US 359 at 368 (1924). Quoted by Jonathan Moskin "Frankenlaw: The Supreme Court's Fair
and Balanced Look at Fair Use" 95 (2005) The Trademark Reporter 848 at 851.
Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v Deenik Case C63/97.
South African Law of Trade Marks (looseleaf edition) para 12.40. The authors quote Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v
BW Tech 2004 Burrell's IP 170 and Aktiebolaget Volvo v Heritage (Leicester) [2000] FSR 253. For further caselaw
guidance see Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v Deenik Case C63/97 (ECJ).
The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LALaboratories Ltd Oy [2005] FSR 37, Case C228/03 (ECJ).
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Autostyle Retail (TPD case 5887/2005).
The picture of the packaging can be found on the following website (the Finnish Supreme Court's subsequent decision
applying the ECJ's judgment): http://www.finlex.fi/fi/oikeus/kko/kko/2006/20060017.