Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport v Rampar Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others

Puma AG, an international sportswear company and owner of several registered trade marks including its well-known ‘form strip’ device marks, alleged that Rampar Trading (Pty) Ltd imported shoes bearing stripe devices that infringed Puma’s registered marks. Acting on Puma’s complaint, inspectors under the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 seized the shoes as suspected counterfeit goods. Rampar applied to the KwaZulu-Natal High Court under s 7(4) of the Act for a declaration that the goods were not counterfeit and should be returned. The High Court held that counterfeiting required ‘cloning’ of existing genuine goods and ruled in Rampar’s favour. Puma appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Rampar’s application under s 7(4) of the Counterfeit Goods Act with costs.

The case is a leading authority on the interpretation of the Counterfeit Goods Act in South Africa. It clarifies that counterfeiting does not require cloning of existing genuine goods and that the Act protects notional goods. The judgment draws a clear distinction between trade mark infringement and counterfeiting, setting a higher threshold for the latter and providing important guidance on the scope of enforcement against counterfeit goods.