Cadac (Pty) Ltd v Weber-Stephen Products Company and Others

Weber-Stephen Products Company, a US-based trademark owner of kettle barbeque grill designs, alleged that Cadac (Pty) Ltd’s newly introduced kettle grill infringed its trademarks and constituted counterfeit goods. Without notifying Cadac, Weber-Stephen laid a complaint under the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997, leading to the issue and execution of a search-and-seizure warrant in December 2004. Cadac’s goods were seized, including goods held by retailers, during the peak Christmas season. Cadac urgently applied to the High Court to set aside the warrant, arguing it had been obtained irregularly and without full disclosure. The High Court set aside the warrant and ordered the return of the goods. Cadac also sought an inquiry into damages for losses suffered due to the seizure. Years later, Cadac applied for directions to conduct the damages inquiry. Weber-Stephen opposed this, arguing inter alia that the claim for damages was incompetent, premature, and had prescribed.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order granting Cadac’s interlocutory application, dismissing Weber-Stephen’s counter-application, and directing that an inquiry into damages be conducted by way of a High Court trial. Directions were issued for pleadings, discovery, and the conduct of the damages determination.

The case is significant for clarifying procedural law in South Africa regarding inquiries into damages, particularly that courts may order a separation of liability and quantum even outside contexts expressly regulated by statute or rules. It affirms the court’s inherent power under section 173 of the Constitution to regulate its own process, clarifies the interruption of prescription by motion proceedings, and limits the application of section 15(2) of the Prescription Act. The judgment also cautions against misuse of the Counterfeit Goods Act to gain procedural advantage in bona fide intellectual property disputes.