Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings Ltd  4 All SA 242 (2001 (3) SA 941) (SCA)
Flamagas SA v Dayan Gifts CC and another unreported, WLD, dated 1
John Craig (Pty) Ltd v Dupa Clothing Industries (Pty) Ltd 1977 (3) SA 144
Juvena Produits de Beauté SA v BLP Import & Export 1980 (3) SA 210 (T)
Kellogg Co and another v Bokomo Cooperative Ltd 1997 (2) SA 725 (C)
Miriam Glick Trading (Pty) Ltd v Clicks Stores (Transvaal) (Pty) Ltd and
others 1979 (2) SA 290 (T)
My Kinda Bones Ltd v Dr Pepper's Stove Co Ltd 1984 FSR 289
Pasquali Cigarette Co Ltd v Diaconicolas and Capsopolus 1905 TS 472
Pepsico Inc and others v United Tobacco Co Ltd 1988 (2) SA 334 (W)
PlasconEvans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623
Polakow Brothers (Pty) Ltd v Gershlowitz 1976 (1) SA 863 (E)
Policansky Bros Ltd v L&H Policansky 1935 AD 89
SA Breweries Ltd v Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd 1973 (4) SA 145 (W)
Stellenbosch Wine Trust Ltd and others v Oude Meester Group Ltd and
others 1977 (2) SA 221 (C)
Tie Rack plc v Tie Rack Stores (Pty) Ltd 1989 (4) SA 427 (T)
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and others  RPC 341
(HL) ( 1 All ER 873)
The first applicant is the owner of all the rights in and to the getup of its vodka/lemon "spirit cooler" beverages
sold under the trade marks Smirnoff Ice and Smirnoff Spin. The second applicant is licensed by the first applicant to
Page 531 of  3 All SA 529 (T)
the getup and trade marks in South Africa in relation to these vodka/lemon "spirit coolers". The locus standi of the
applicants is not disputed.
The respondent is DGB (Pty) Ltd which manufactures, bottles, markets and sells in South Africa a similar
vodka/lemon "spirit cooler" beverage. It sells this competing product under the name of Nordic Ice.
The applicants claim the following relief:
Interdicting and restraining the respondent from passing off its vodka cooler and any other alcoholic spirit
product as that of the applicants or as being connected in the course of trade with the applicants by using in
any getup which is identical to the getup used in relation the applicants' Smirnoff Ice and Smirnoff Spin
products as illustrated in annexure 'UDV1' to the affidavit of Solace Kgomoco Tseliso ('the founding
any getup which is likely to deceive or cause confusion due to its similarity with the appearance of the
getup used in relation to the applicant's Smirnoff Ice and Smirnoff Spin products as illustrated in annexure
'UDV1' to the founding affidavit.
Interdicting and restraining the respondent from competing unlawfully with the applicants at common law by
manufacturing, marketing and exhibiting for commercial purposes, offering for sale and or selling the Nordic Ice
vodka spirit cooler product and any other alcoholic spirit product incorporating a getup as illustrated and
identified as annexure 'UDV32' to the founding affidavit.
Costs of the application."
I understood from Mr Bester, who appears for the applicants, that they are not pursuing the relief originally sought
in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the notice of motion. The relief there claimed was not referred to in his heads of argument,
and he did not address me in regard thereto.