Previous 21 / 21 Next

54.2 The objection to the applicants' name lodged by the second respondent on 8 July 2002 is accordingly dismissed; 54.3 The second respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application; 54.4 The counterapplication by the second respondent is dismissed with costs; 54.5 All the costs, where applicable, are costs including costs occasioned by the employment of two Counsel. For the first appellant: AR SholtoDouglas SC instructed by Jan S de Villiers For the respondent: Morley SC and A Smalberger instructed by Bowman Gilfillan Inc Footnotes 1 For these proceedings, the case for the respondent was argued on the basis that only the registered mark Town Lodge would be relied upon. 2 Irrelevant parts have been omitted. 3 2001 (3) SA 1268 (SCA) at 1273J. [Also reported at [2001] JOL 8319 (A) Ed]. 4 [2002] 2 All SA 488 (C) at 502B. 5 1995 (4) SA 1016 (T). 6 (1987) 2 FNZLR 600. 7 Abbott Laboratories and others v UAP Crop Care (Pty) Ltd and others 1999 (3) SA 624 (C) at 634. [Also reported at [1999] 1 All SA 502 (C) Ed]. 8 Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd 1957 (4) SA 234 (C) at 240. 9 PlasconEvans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 640G. 10 PlasconEvans (supra) at 642E. 11 Albion Chemical Co Pty (Ltd) v FAM Products CC 2004 (6) SA 264 (C) at 269. [Also reported at [2004] 1 All SA 194 (C) Ed]. 12 Webster and Page, South African Law of Trade Marks, Unlawful Competition, Company Names and Trading Styles, 4ed para [12.8.5]. 13 Adidas Sportsschufabriken ADI Dassler KG v Harry Walt & Co (Pty) Ltd 1976 (1) SA 530 (T) at 535H. 14 CPD, 26 January 2005, case no 4656/04. 15 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA). 16 [2005] 4 All SA 474 (C) para [24]. 17 Adidas Sportschuhfabriken ADI Dassler KG v Harry Walt (supra) at 532A. 18 1935 AD 89 at 97. 19 1977 (2) SA 916 (A) at 929CE. 20 1998 (3) SA 938 (SCA). [Also reported at [1998] 3 All SA 175 (A) Ed]. 21 2000 (3) SA 259 (SCA). [Also reported at [1999] JOL 4947 (A) Ed]. 22 Vol 1 at 9394. 23 1957 (4) SA 234 (C) at 240CD. 24 1979 (2) SA 276 (E). 25 [1979] FSR 113 at 117. 26 1982 (2) SA 403 (C) [at 404E Ed]. 27 (1978) 140 CLR 216. 28 [1981] RPC 429 at 490 lines 1530. 29 The infringement of which mark its case relied upon. 30 Otherthan Town House.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Cape Town Lodge CC v Registrar of Close Corporations and another [2008] 2 All SA 34 (C)

Case Law

Case Outcome

Disposition: Injunction or Order Granted

Case Status: Closed

Keywords

Intellectual property
Trademark

Case Number: 8073/04

Decision date: Sep 18, 2007

Country

South Africa

Judicial Body: Administrative Court

Court Name: Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division of South Africa

Collection: CIPIT

Case Summary: The dispute between the parties, in this case, had its genesis in the applicant's being informed by the Registrar ofClose Corporations, that its registered name was undesirable. The Registrar had been acting in response to an objection to the name. The Court found that the use of the generic words "Cape" and "Town" in the applicant's name meant that the name could not be regarded as undesirable. It granted the relief sought by the applicant in the main application. The counterapplication was dismissed with costs

Notes: The case involved the main application and the counter-claim. In the main application, the Court was being asked to set aside the Registrar's decision, and to dismiss the objection referred to above. In a counterapplication, the second respondent invoked section 34 of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 for alleging that two of its registered marks, both of them word marks, viz "Town Lodge" and "Town Lodge Limited" were infringed. In support of its argument, reliance was placed on section 34(1)(a) of the Act.

Date Updated: Nov 7, 2019

Primary Documents

Cape Town Lodge CC v Registrar of Close Corporations and another [2008] 2 All SA 34 (C).pdf
English
Download View