Dinnermates (Tvl) CC v Piquante Brands International (Pty) Ltd and Another

Dinnermates (Tvl) CC applied to register the trade mark PEPPAMATES together with a pepper device in classes 29, 30 and 31 for various food products, including pepper-related goods. Piquante Brands International (Pty) Ltd, the proprietor of several registered trade marks incorporating the mark PEPPADEW with a pepper device, opposed the applications under sections 10(14) and 10(17) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993, alleging that PEPPAMATES was confusingly similar to its PEPPADEW marks. The Registrar transferred the matter to the High Court, which upheld the opposition under s 10(14). An appeal to the full court was dismissed. Dinnermates then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, with leave, limited to the question of likelihood of deception or confusion under s 10(14).

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the full court was set aside. The opposition to trade mark applications 2010/09722 and 2010/09721 was dismissed, and the trade marks were directed to proceed to registration.

The case clarifies the application of section 10(14) of the Trade Marks Act and reinforces that descriptive elements, even if common and prominent, cannot easily be monopolised. It confirms that trade marks must be assessed as a whole and cautions against overemphasising shared descriptive components or devices. The judgment is significant for trade mark opposition and coexistence disputes in South African law.