ICT Policy Africa

- Public documents
- Sign in
- en
- fr
- es
- pt

Previous 6 / 6 Next

the "KG" mark predates Turbek's amendment to "KG", its application for registration of "KG" in class 25 is an
earlier application for purposes of the provision. The argument assumes that the amendment increased the
scope of Turbek's rights. I do not accept the correctness of the assumption on the facts of the case. It has
always been common cause that "KG" and "KG Italia" are confusingly similar. Furthermore, "KG Italia" could
have been registered subject to a disclaimer or limitation relating to "Italia". In that event Spitz would have
had no case under section 10(15). The deletion of "Italia" had more or less the same effect as a disclaimer or
limitation would have had.
Conclusion
[24] Having found that Spitz's application to have the two registrations removed has to be dismissed, it follows in
the light of my earlier findings that Spitz's application as a whole should have been dismissed with costs     in
the court below. The appeal has, therefore, to succeed with costs and the following order is made:
1

The appeal is upheld with costs.

Page 293 of [2010] 2 All SA 284 (SCA)

2

The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application with
costs.

(Lewis, Ponnan, Mhlantla JJA and Hurt AJA concurred in the judgment of Harms DP.)
For the appellant:
AJ Bester instructed by Spoor and Fisher
For the respondent:
GE Morley SC and AM Annandale instructed by Bowman Gilfillan Incorporated

Footnotes
1

S 43:
"No person shall be entitled to institute any proceedings, to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of
a trade mark not registered under this Act: Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person, at
common law, to bring an action against any other person for passingoff goods or services as those of another
person."

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Info
1Connections

South Africa flag

Turbek Trading CC v A and D Spitz Ltd and another [2010] 2 All SA 284 (SCA)

Case Law

Case Outcome

Reversed Lower Court

Case Status: Closed

Keywords

Intellectual property
Trademark

Case Number: 565/08

Decision date: Nov 27, 2009

Country

South Africa

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

Collection: CIPIT

Case Summary: The appellant was a close corporation whose controlling member, a Mr Kenneth Gordon, was a shoe designer whoused his initials "KG" as his trade mark. "Kurt Geiger" was a trade mark used by the respondent in respect offootwear. That trade mark was registered in December 1990, whilst that of the appellant was registered inFebruary 2005.The respondent laid claim to the trade mark "KG", alleging that it had used the mark before the application dateof the appellant's trade marks. It, accordingly, approached the court below for an order for the expungement of theregistrations. In order to interdict the appellant from using the mark "KG", the respondent relied on trade markinfringement and on passingoff. The court below upheld the application on all three grounds, leading to thepresent appeal.In the expungement claim, the respondent's case was that it had used the trade mark for some years before theappellant applied for registration of its mark, and that it, accordingly, had a prior right to the mark. The appellantargued that the registrations were liable to be revoked under section 10(16) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993,which provides that a mark may not be registered as a trade mark or, if registered, is liable to be removed from theregister if the registration of that mark is contrary to existing rights of the person who filed a later application forregistration of the same or similar mark.The trade mark infringement claim was based on two premises. The first related to the likelihood of deception andconfusion, and the second was that the use of any identical or confusingly similar registered trade mark cannotinfringe another registered mark.Page 285 of [2010] 2 All SA 284 (SCA)In the passingoff claim, the respondent contended that it could rely on passingoff to prevent the appellant fromusing the "KG" trade mark even if it were unable to have the trade marks expunged.Held The first case to deal with passing off was that of Glenton and Mitchell v Ceylon Tea Company 1918 WLD 118.Having found that the applicant had established a prior reputation in the mark as registered, the Court concludedthat if a prima facie case was made out that the mark should not have been on the register, an interim interdictcould issue. In other words, registration is not a defence to a passingoff claim if the claimant for interim relief isable to show that the register ought to be rectified by the removal of the registration. The present Court supportedthat conclusion and held that a party who wishes to prevent another party from using the latter's registered trademark, has to establish a ground for revocation.The real issue between the parties was whether the respondent had, as at the date of the appellant'sapplications for registration, an existing right in the trade mark "KG" in class 25 for purposes of section 10(16) ofthe Act. During argument, the respondent conceded that it did not brand its footwear as "KG", using instead, thefull "Kurt Geiger" name in combination with the initials "KG". The Court, therefore, concluded that the scale and nature of the conjunctive use was such that no separate and distinct reputation arose in relation to "KG" simpliciter. The appeal was, accordingly, upheld and the respondent's application in the lower court dismissed in its entirety

Date Updated: Nov 4, 2019

Document

Turbek Trading CC v A and D Spitz Ltd and another [2010] 2 All SA 284 (SCA).pdf93.02 KB

Attachments