16 National Brands Ltd v Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd 2001 (3) SA 563 (SCA) para 11; Webster & Page SA Law of Trade
Marks (looseleaf ed) para 12.24 and the authorities there quoted especially BR Rutherford "Misappropriation of the
advertising value of trade marks, trade names and service marks" in J Neethling (ed) Onregmatige Mededinging/Unlawful
Competition (1990); P Ginsburg "Trademark dilution" in Coenraad Visser The New Law of Trade Marks and Designs (1995).
In the German Mars case see below reference was made to a promotional advertising right (Case I ZR 79/92, 1995 [26]
IIC 282). FW Mostert, in his doctoral thesis, spoke of the "reg op die reklamebeeld": Grondslae van die reg op die
reklamebeeld (Rand Afrikaans University 1985).
17 Trademark Dilution (1996) 25. Further at 72 et seq.
18 References omitted.
19 "The Rational Basis of Trade Mark Protection" [1927] 40 Harvard Law Review 813.
20 GRUR 1985 (7) 550. The judgment is quoted and discussed in Premier Brands UK Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd [2000] FSR 767
(Ch) 786.
21 Famous and WellKnown Marks (1ed) 5960; (2 ed) 1103.
22 American Express Co v Vibra Approved Laboratories Corp 10 USPQ 2d 2006 (SDNY 1989).
23 Case I ZR 79/92, 1995 [26] IIC 282.
24 A Sheimer (M) SDN BHD's Trade Mark Application [2000] RPC 13 (at 484).
25 Tony Martino ch 6. Canada has an antidilution provision in s 22 of its Trade Marks Act but it is said to be poorly drawn and
that it does its job equally poorly: David Vaver "Need intellectual property be everywhere? Against ubiquity and uniformity"
2002 [25] Dalhousie LJ 1 at 20. The Australian Trade Marks Act 1995 s 120 does not have a similar provision.
26 The detail can be found in Moseley dba Victor's Little Secret v V Secret Catalogue Inc 123 S Ct 1115; 65 USPQ 2d 1801.
27 First Council Directive 89/1988 of the Council of the European Communities "To approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks". To be found at David Kitchin et al Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (13ed) at 1017.
28 Notice 808 of 1991 GG 13482 of 30 August 1991.
29 Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA); Triomed (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group Plc 2001 (2) SA 522 (T) at 554H
557J [also reported at [ 2 0 0 1 ] 2 A l l S A 1 2 6 ( T ) E d ] ; National Brands Ltd v Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd
2001 (3) SA 563 (SCA) para 11; Klimax Manufacturing Ltd v Van Rensburg [2004] 2 All SA 301 (O).
30 On the value of the freedom of expression: S v Mamabolo (E TV and others intervening) 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC) [also
reported at 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC) Ed] esp para 72; Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority
2002 (4) SA 294 (CC) para 25 et seq [also reported at 2002 (5) BCLR 433 (CC) Ed].
31 As to the importance of this qualification: FW Mostert Famous and wellknown marks
(2ed) 197.
32 On commercial speech in the USA cf Sanette Nel "Freedom of commercial speech: evaluating the ban on advertising of legal
products such as tobacco" XXXVII CILSA 65 68 (2004).
33 Cf LL Bean Inc v Drake Publishers Inc 811 F2d 26 (1987): a parodic article in a magazine was held not to infringe the senior
mark.
34 FW Mostert Famous and wellknown marks (2 ed) 1115.
35 Cf Pfizer Ltd and Pfizer Inc v Eurofood Link (UK) Ltd [2000] ETMR 896 (Ch) para 37. A mere conjuring up of the trade mark
is not enough: cf Cliffs Notes Inc v Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc 886 F 2d 491 at 496 (1989).
36 Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] RPC 5 (CA) 235 at 242243, [2001] EWCA Civ 1142; Levi Strauss & Co v Tesco
Stores Ltd [2003] RPC 18 (Ch) at 336; Rogers v Grimaldi 875 F 2d 994 (1989).
37 C f Khumalo v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC) para 21 et seq [also reported at 2002 (8) BCLR 771 ( C C ) Ed]. In his
affidavit Nurse raised a large number of serious social and political issues but these have nothing to do with the issues in
this case. Neither the appellant's nor FXI's counsel relied on any of those matters.
38 C f Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company v Novak 648 F Supp 905; 231 USPQ 963 upheld on appeal: Mutual of Omaha
Insurance Company v Novak 836 F2d 397.
39 Cf Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Inc v Pussycat Cinema Ltd 604 F2d 200.
40 The position is different in the UK: DaimlerChrysler AG v Javid Alavi (t/a Merc) [2001] RPC 22 at 842 and under US federal
law: Moseley dba Victor's Little Secret v V Secret Catalogue Inc 123 S Ct 1115; 65 USPQ 2d 1801.
41 FW Mostert Famous and wellknown marks (2ed) 1122 for a discussion of the free speech defence.
42 All the trouble in the world.
43 Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin Michelin & Cie v National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and
General Workers Union of Canada (CAWCanada) (TD) [1997] 2 FC 306; Rotisseries StHubert LTEE v Le Syndicat des
Travailleurs (EUSES) de la Rotisseries St Hubert de Drummondville (CSN) 17 CPR (3d) 461.
44 Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin"Michelin & Cie v National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and
General Workers Union of Canada (CAWCanada) (TD); Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co v Novak 836 F2d 397 (1987).
45 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Inc v Pussycat Cinema Ltd 604 F2d 200 at 206.
46 Eg Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin Michelin & Cie v National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and
General Workers Union of Canada (CAWCanada) (TD); Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co v Novak.
47 Tony Martino Trademark Dilution 6062.
48 An adaptation of a statement about status by Fintan O'Toole A Traitor's Kiss 71.
49 Tony Martino Trademark Dilution 6162.
50 Gucci Shops Inc v RH Macy's Co 446 F Supp 838 (1977); AnheuserBusch Inc v Balducci Publications 28 F3d 769 (1994).
51 510 US 569; 29 USPQ 2d 1961.
52 (1976) 17 U.S.C. 107.
53 References have generally been omitted.
54 Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin"Michelin & Cie v National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and
General Workers Union of Canada (CAWCanada) (TD) [1997] 2 FC 306.
55 See in general: Dr Seuss Enterprises LP v Penguin Books USA Inc 109 F3d 1394 (1997); Rogers v Koons 960 F 2d 301
(1992); Suntrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin Co 268 F 3d 1257. In a recent Dutch case the court did not consider that parodying
Russian society justified the copyright infringement of Harry Potter books: Ilanah Simon "Parodies: A touch of magic"
[2004] European Intellectual Property Review 185.
56 Clive James The Dreaming Swimmer 117.
57 The fact that a work is a parody may indicate that it is not a copy of the senior
work, only that it used the idea of the senior work: Joy Music Ltd v Sunday Pictorial Newspapers (1920) Ltd [1960] 1 All ER
703 (QB) at 708 but that is another issue
altogether. It is seems to be related to the transformative test for determining fair use:
Cf Pierre N Leval "Toward a fair use standard" [103] Harvard LR 1105 and the response by Lloyd L Weinreb "Fair's fair: a
comment on the fair use doctrine" [103] Harvard LR 1137.
58 AnheuserBusch Inc v Balducci Publications 28 F3d 769 (1994). In the US parody is often used to answer the question
whether there is a likelihood of confusion: Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp v Pacific Graphics 776 F Supp 1454 (1991).
59 26 February 2003 General index registration number: 2002/16307, 2002/17820.
60 Olivier Bancheraeu in an Intellectual Property newsletter at http://www.lovells.com.
61 US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Reference not yet available.
62 Cf LL Bean Inc v Drake Publishers Inc 811 F2d 26 (1987) and, in another statutory context: Lighthawk, Environmental Air