Case Law > Intellectual Property
 The first, and the earlier application was in the name of a local businessman who, evidence revealed, never had any intention to use the mark. |
| 30/12/2002 | Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property |
 In deciding whether there exists a reasonable likelihood of confusion between the two marks POWER and POWERHOUSE, the Court held that the marks not only had to be compared to each other, but consideration should also be given as to whether the average customer would probably be confused or deceived. |
| 31/01/2001 | Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property |
 Both Cadbury (Pty) Limited ("Cadbury") and Beacon Sweets and Chocolates (Pty) Limited ("Beacon") are manufacturers and distributors of sweets and confectionery. |
| Download PDF | 12/10/2000 | Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property |
 Section 42 of the old Act provided that, after the expiration of seven years from the date of entry onto the register, that the registration is take to be valid in all respects and that mark could therefore not be attacked on grounds relating to the marks original registration. |
| 29/02/2000 | Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property |
|
In this case the Court was faced with an application for the partial expungement of a trade mark specification on the ground of non-use.
2/02/2000
| Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property
|
 The Court held that factors such as honest concurrent use did not constitute a statutory defence to trade mark infringement. |
| 29/01/1999 | Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property |
 The correct question to ask was whether the Appellant has, in a practical and business sense, a sufficient reputation amongst a substantial number of persons who were either clients or potential clients of his business. |
| 24/10/1998 | Posted in: Intellectual Property |
 In this case, however, it was held that, if the trade mark application relied on was without substance or for some reason invalid, that application does not qualify as a person aggrieved. |
| 30/01/1998 | Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property |
 In casu, the Appellate Division found that use of the trade mark SPACEY in relation to a child's pencil box infringed the trade mark SPACE CASE, which was registered for, inter alia, pencil boxes, despite the that the trade mark was registered with a disclaimer of the words "space" and "case". |
| 31/05/1996 | Posted in: Trade Marks and Intellectual Property |
|
The firm practises directly in several Southern African countries and through long-established associates in others.
