CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another

Citation(650/2020) [2021] ZASCA 161 (25 November 2022)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Intellectual Property LawTrade Mark Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Civil Procedure

Facts of the Case

This is a supplementary judgment dealing with the correction of a patent error in an order previously granted on 22 February 2022. The original order dealt with the removal of certain trade mark registrations from the register. Paragraph 2(c) of the original order incorrectly stated the registration number as '2013/31832' when it should have been '2014/31832' for a POLO PONY & PLAYER DEVICE trade mark in class 9. On 12 October 2022, the parties jointly brought the patent error to the attention of the Court's registrar and sought correction of the order.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal has the power to correct a patent error in its own order
  • Whether an order in rem affecting a public register (the trade marks register) may be corrected

Judicial Outcome

The court ordered that paragraph 2(c) of the order granted in this matter be amended by the deletion of '2013' and the substitution thereof with '2014'.

Ratio Decidendi

A court has the power to correct a patent error in its own order, particularly where the order is one in rem that affects a public register such as the trade marks register. This power derives from the court's inherent jurisdiction to correct clerical or obvious errors in its orders to ensure they accurately reflect the court's intention.

Obiter Dicta

The court made no obiter observations in this brief procedural judgment. The judgment was strictly limited to the correction of the identified patent error and did not venture into any broader legal principles beyond what was necessary for the determination of the application for correction.

Legal Significance

This judgment reaffirms the well-established principle in South African law that courts have inherent power to correct patent errors in their own orders. It is particularly significant in confirming that this power extends to orders in rem that affect public registers, such as the trade marks register, where accuracy is essential for public record-keeping and third-party reliance. The case demonstrates the practical application of the doctrine allowing correction of clerical or patent errors, especially where such errors affect public registers.

Case Network

Explore 4 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Related Cases

This case references

Cited

  • Willem Jakobus Albertus Oosthuizen & another v The State(180/2018) [2020] ZASCA 1 (21 January 2020)
  • The Gap Inc v Salt of the Earth Creations (Pty) Ltd and others(695/11) [2012] ZASCA 68 (23 May 2012)

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Cites

  • Afgri Grain Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the time being of Copenship Bulkers A/S (in liquidation) and Others(797/2018) [2019] ZASCA 67 (29 May 2019)
  • Willem Jakobus Albertus Oosthuizen & another v The State(180/2018) [2020] ZASCA 1 (21 January 2020)
  • The Gap Inc v Salt of the Earth Creations (Pty) Ltd and others(695/11) [2012] ZASCA 68 (23 May 2012)

Referenced by

Appeal From By

  • LA Group (Pty) Ltd v Stable Brands (Pty) Ltd and Another(Case no 650/2020) [2022] ZASCA 20 (22 February 2022)