Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport v Global Warming (Pty) Limited

Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport, the proprietor of two registered trade marks consisting of tapering stripe devices used on footwear and clothing in class 25, instituted an action against Global Warming (Pty) Ltd for trade mark infringement under s 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. Global marketed shoes bearing a stripe device and the words “DT NEW YORK”. Puma alleged that the stripe on Global’s shoes was identical or confusingly similar to its registered stripe marks and sought an interdict and damages calculated on a notional royalty basis. The High Court dismissed Puma’s claim after hearing evidence, finding no likelihood of confusion or deception. Puma appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal with leave.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case is significant for reaffirming South African trade mark infringement principles, particularly the requirement of an objective, global assessment of the likelihood of confusion based on overall impression. It confirms that registered trade marks do not confer monopolies over ideas or concepts, that subjective intention is generally irrelevant in infringement analysis, and that notional royalty damages do not require proof of actual loss, clarifying an important remedial principle in intellectual property law.