Similar products, manufactured and distributed by the first respondent and the appellant respectively, led to the dispute in this case. The first respondent, a US company, was the registered owner of trademarks that related to the shape and configuration of barbeque kettle grills. The appellant also manufactured kettle grills and had a kettle grill on the local market for some 18 months when it decided to introduce another model during November 2004. That led to an allegation of trademark infringement by the first respondent. The appellant refuted such allegation, and the first respondent then alleged that the appellant was guilty of counterfeiting and threatened to lay a charge under the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (the "Act"). Although the appellant again refuted the allegations, the first respondent proceeded to lay a complaint without notice to the appellant and without disclosing the fact that the appellant had asked for notice and had provided it with a detailed defence. An inspector appointed under the act, acting on the allegations in the first respondent's affidavit, applied for a warrant from a magistrate in chambersauthorising him to seize the appellant's kettle grills. The warrant was executed during the Christmas season and kettle grills in the possession of dealers were also confiscated. The appellant alleged that it suffered loss as a result.