that enforcement may involve a clash of the IP policies of different countries; that extraterritorial jurisdiction
involves a restraint on actions in another
View Parallel Citation
country an interference which prima facie a foreign judge should avoid; and that it will create too much room
for forumshopping. In addition:31
"it is quite clear that those concerned with international agreements about copyright have refrained from putting in
place a regime for the international
Page 459 of [2011] 1 All SA 449 (SCA)
litigation of copyrights by the courts of a single state. . . . A system of mutual recognition of copyright jurisdiction and
of copyright judgments could have been created but it has not."
Plaintiffs' counsel did not even attempt to refute the validity of any of these propositions.
[26] It follows that the appeal must be dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, and it is so
ordered.
(Nugent, Lewis, Ponnan and Cachalia JJA concurred in the judgment of Harms DP.)
For the appellant:
A Subel SC and O Salmon SC instructed by Werksmans, Sandton and Matsepes Incorporated, Bloemfontein
For the respondent:
J Blou SC and C Bester instructed by Deborah Mann Attorney, Johannesburg and Lovius Block Attorneys, Bloemfontein
Footnotes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Ewing McDonald and Co Ltd v M and M Products Co 1991 (1) SA 252 (A) at 256GH [also reported at [1991] 1 All SA 319
(A) Ed].
Makhanya v University of Zululand 2010 (1) SA 62 (SCA) paras 2836 and 54 [also reported at [2009] 4 All SA 146
(SCA) Ed] read with Estate Agents Board v Lek 1979 (3) SA 1048 (A) at 1063FG, Steytler NO v Fitzgerald 1911 AD
295 at 314315, 346347 and Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security and others 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC) [also reported
at 2010 (1) BCLR 35 (CC) Ed].
Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 s 10(1).
CF Forsyth "Private International Law" 4ed at 167 fn 64 and 65 for the cases.
Ewing McDonald and Co Ltd v M and M Products Co, supra at 259DE, 260BE.
Veneta Mineraria Spa v Carolina Collieries (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) 1987 (4) SA 883 (A) at 893E894B [also reported at
[1987] 2 All SA 447 (A) Ed].
These rules are based on Voet 5.1.77. See Rosa's Heirs v Inhambane Sugar Estates Ltd 1905 TH 11; Welgemoed and
another NNO v The Master and another 1976 (1) SA 513 (T) at 522 [also reported at [1976] 1 All SA 504 (T) Ed].
Hugo v Wessels 1987 (3) SA 837 (A) at 851DF, 856HI [also reported at [1987] 2 All SA 290 (A) Ed].
Francois du Bois (ed) Wille's "Principles of South African Law" 9ed at 412413, 419425 (2007); CG van der Merwe
"Sakereg" 2ed at 3647 (1989).
Spier Estate and another v Die Bergkelder Bpk 1988 (1) SA 94 (C) at 98GJ. Graham Austin "Private International Law
and Intellectual Property Rights: A Common Law Overview" para 36 available electronically at www.wipo.int.
MV Snow Delta: Serva Ship Ltd v Discount Tonnage Ltd 2000 (4) SA 746 (SCA) paras 914 [also reported at [2000] 4 All
SA 400 (SCA) Ed].
Cornish and Llewelyn "Intellectual Property" 5ed at 26 (2003).
Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property Law electronically available at http://ssrn.com.
Norbert Steinhardt and Sons Ltd v Meth [1961] HCA 33 para 7 (Australia); Plastus Kreativ v 3M [1995] RPC 438 447
(UK); Voda v Cordis Corporation 476 F.3d 887 (USA).
Victoria's Secret Inc v Edgars Stores Ltd 1994 (3) SA 739 (A) [also reported at [1994] 4 All SA 307 (A) Ed].
McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers DriveInn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd [1996] 4 All SA 1 (A), 1997 (1) SA 1 (A).
Caterham Car Sales and Coachworks Ltd v Birkin Cars (Pty) Ltd and another 1998 (3) SA 938 (SCA) para 20 [also
reported at [1998] 3 All SA 175 (SCA) Ed].
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers [2004] 2
SCR 427 para 56 (Canada).
Vagar (t/a Rajshree Release) v Transavalon (Pty) Ltd (t/a Avalon Cinema) 1977 (3) SA 766 (W) at 769E. Compare
Appleton and another v Harnischfeger Corporation and another 1995 (2) SA 247 (A) at 257D258D [also reported at
[1995] 2 All SA 693 (A) Ed].
Christopher Wadlow "The Enforcement of Intellectual Property in European and International Law" at 1114 (1998).
Memory Institute SA CC t/a Memory Institute v Hansen and others 2004 (2) SA 630 (SCA) para 6 [also reported at
[2003] JOL 11019 (SCA) Ed].
Tyburn Productions v Conan Doyle (1990) 19 IPR 455; Atkinson Footwear Ltd v Hodgskin International Services Limited
(1994) 31 IPR 186 (NZ), both referred to in Lucasfilm para 157. See also the views of Justice Gummow, "Introduction"
in Rickett and Austin (eds) "International Intellectual Property and the Common Law World" 5 (2000) quoted by Prof
Graham Austin op cit. The judgment in KK Sony Computer Entertainment v Van Veen (2006) 71 IPR 179 (New Zealand)
came to a different conclusion by following Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 769 but Lucasfilm held
that Pearce had been misunderstood.
At para 21.
At para 182 (iii) and (iv).
Lucasfilm para 140 and 175.
Lucasfilm para 144.
Coin Controls v Suzo International [1999] Ch 33 at 44DE. See also the similar views of Fawcett and Torremans