Previous 2 / 24 Next

Adidas Sportschuhfabriken Adi Dassler KG v Harry Walt and Co (Pty) Ltd [1976] 2 All SA 45 (1976 (1) SA 530) (T) Distinguished 652 Adidas Sportschuhfabriken Adi Dassler Stiftung and Co KG v Continental Wholesalers, unreported, 1988 Distinguished 652 Atlas Organic Fertilisers (Pty) Ltd v Pikkewyn Ghwano (Pty) Ltd and others 1981 (2) SA 173 (T) Referred to 661 Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC and another [2000] JOL 7458 (2001 (1) SA 844) (SCA) Discussed 645 Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v National Brands Ltd [2001] 4 All SA 235 (2001 (3) SA 884) (SCA) Referred to 660 Brian Boswell Circus (Pty) Ltd and another v Boswell Wilkie Circus (Pty) Ltd [1985] 2 All SA 512 (1985 (4) SA 466) (AD) Referred to 660 Burnkloof Caterers (Pty) Ltd v Horseshoe Caterers (Greenpoint) (Pty) Ltd [1974] 1 All SA 397 (1974 (2) SA 125) (C) Referred to 655 Cadbury (Pty) Ltd v Beacon Sweets and Chocolates (Pty) Ltd and another [2000] 2 All SA 1 (2000 (2) SA 771) (SCA) Referred to 674 Capital Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd and others v Holiday Inns Inc and others [1977] 3 All SA 306 (1977 (2) SA 916) (AD) Referred to 659 Caterham Car Sales and Coachworks Ltd v Birkin Cars (Pty) Ltd and another [1998] 3 All SA 175 (1998 (3) SA 938) (SCA) Followed 661 Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft [2007] 4 All SA 1331 (2007 (6) SA 637) (SCA) Referred to 643 Danco Clothing (Pty) Ltd v NuCare Marketing Sales and Promotions (Pty) Ltd and another 1991 (4) SA 850 (A) Referred to 645 Hoechst Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd v The Beauty Box (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) and another [1987] 2 All SA 128 (1987 (2) SA 600) (A) Referred to 660 Horseshoe Caterers (Greenpoint) (Pty) Ltd v Burnkloof Caterers (Pty) Ltd [1975] 2 All SA 451 (1975 (2) SA 189) (C) Referred to 660 John Craig (Pty) Ltd v Dupa Clothing Industries (Pty) Ltd [1977] 3 All SA 466 (1977 (3) SA 144) (T) Referred to 646 Page 638 of [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC) Kellogg Co and another v Bokomo Cooperative Ltd 1997 (2) SA 725 (C) Referred to 646 Lorimar Productions Incorporated and others v Sterling Clothing Manufacturers (Pty) Limited; Lorimar Productions Incorporated and others v OK Hyperama Limited and others; Lorimar Productions Incorporated and others v Dallas Restaurant 1981 (3) SA 1129 (T) Referred to 660 Luster Products Inc v Magic Style Sales CC [1997] 1 All SA 327 (1997 (3) SA 13) (A) Referred to 658 New Media Publishing (Pty) Ltd v Eating Out Web Services CC 2005 (5) SA 388 (C) Referred to 645 Oude Meester Groep Bpk and another v SA Breweries Ltd; SA Breweries Ltd and another v Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and another [1973] 4 All SA 241 (1973 (4) SA 145) (W) Referred to 661 Plascon Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] 2 All SA 366 (1984 (3) SA 623) (A) Applied 644 Policansky Brothers Ltd v L and H Policansky 1935 AD 89 Referred to 659 PPI Makelaars and another v Professional Providence Society of SA [1997] 4 All SA 444 (1998 (1) SA 595) (SCA) Referred to 645 Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport v Global Warming (Pty) Ltd [2010] 1 All SA 25 (2010 (2) SA 600) (SCA) Referred to 646

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Adidas AG and another v Pepkor Retail Ltd [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC)

Case Law

Case Outcome

Procedural: Dismissed
Disposition: Injunction or Order Denied

Case Status: Closed

Keywords

Intellectual property
Trademark

Case Number: 14605/2009

Decision date: Dec 15, 2011

Country

South Africa

Judicial Body: Administrative Supreme Court

Court Name: WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN

Collection: CIPIT

Case Summary: The first applicant was the proprietor of certain well known trademarks. Products bearing those marks were marketed and sold in South Africa and globally. The respondent was a South African retail company. Seeking interdictory relief, the applicant contended that the respondent in the conduct of its business was infringing the registered trademarks and was passing off its goods as being those of applicant or as being connected in the cause of trade with the applicant. In particular, the applicants alleged that the respondent was infringing the registered trademark by the use of certain marks on footwear that was offered for sale at some of the respondent's outlets. The sale of shoes bearing the allegedly infringing marks was admitted by the respondent. The respondent argued that the registration of two of the four registered trademarks concerned "sporting footwear of all kinds" and that, except for the respondent's football boot, the other three of the respondent's shoes that were alleged to bear infringing marks were leisure shoes and not sports shoes. The respondent alleged that the marks on those three shoes could not infringe on the two registered trademarks. Held The issue between the parties concerning infringement was limited to the likelihood of deception or confusion. In terms of section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993, the question was whether the marks on the respondent's footwear were "identical" to or "so nearly resembling" the registered trademarks "as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion".The onus is on the party alleging infringement to show the likelihood of deception or confusion. The applicant had to show that a substantial number of people would probably be confused about the origin of the goods or about the connection between the offending goods and those of the registered trademark owner. Examining the products in question, against the relevant trademarks, the Court was not persuaded that when viewed against the evidence of the page 637 of [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC)wellknown association of applicants' trademarks with a 3stripe mark, the use of 2 or 4 stripes on respondent'sfootwear so nearly resembled the applicants' footwear as to be likely to cause confusion or deception among the average consumer of average intelligence with an imperfect recollection of applicants' registered trademark. Having failed on the infringement and passingoff allegations, the applicants had not established harm actually committed nor reasonably apprehended. The application for an interdict was dismissed with costs

Date Updated: Nov 7, 2019

Primary Documents

Adidas AG and another v Pepkor Retail Ltd [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC).pdf
English
Download View