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

National Brands Limited v Blue Lion Manufacturing (Proprietary) Ltd

CitationCase No: 228/99
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

Facts of the Case

This was an appeal concerning a dispute between National Brands Limited (appellant) and Blue Lion Manufacturing (Proprietary) Ltd (respondent) regarding trade mark infringement. The specific factual circumstances of the dispute, including the nature of the trade marks involved, the products or services in question, and the particular acts alleged to constitute infringement are not detailed in the judgment extract provided.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the respondent's use of its trade mark constituted infringement of the appellant's registered trade mark
  • What constitutes trade mark infringement under South African law

Judicial Outcome

The final order and outcome of the appeal is not specified in the judgment extract provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principle(s) established by this case cannot be determined from the judgment extract provided, as the substantive reasoning and decision of the court are not included in the extract.

Obiter Dicta

No obiter dicta can be identified from the judgment extract provided, as only the case header information is available.

Legal Significance

The significance of this case in South African trade mark jurisprudence cannot be determined from the limited information provided in the extract. A full reading of the judgment would be necessary to assess its contribution to the development of trade mark law principles in South Africa.

Cited By 9 Cases

  • Adidas AG & another v Pepkor Retail Limited(187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3 (28 February 2013)
    Applies

    Court applies the principles governing passing off and the test for the notional average purchaser who must be considered when determining likelihood of…

  • Casadobe Props 60 (Pty) Ltd v Fratelli Martini Secondo Luigi SpA(759/2023) [2025] ZASCA 14 (25 February 2025)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that where the sense of one word mark differs markedly from another, the scope for deception or confusion is reduced, and visual…

  • Century City Apartments Property Services CC v Century City Property Owners' Association(57/09) [2009] ZASCA 157 (27 November 2009)
    Cites

    Cited to illustrate the excessive volume of papers in trade mark disputes.

  • Koni Multinational Brands (Pty) Ltd v Beiersdorf AG(553/19) [2021] ZASCA 24 (19 March 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that use of different names does not necessarily exclude the probability of deception.

  • National Brands Limited v Cape Cookies CC and Another(309/2022) [2023] ZASCA 93 (12 June 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that section 34(1)(c) protects the commercial value attached to the reputation of a trade mark, rather than its capacity to…

  • Open Horizon Ltd v Carnilinx (Pty) Ltd(225/2021) [2022] ZASCA 75
    Cites

    Court cites this case's observation that passing off might have been a better horse to ride than trade mark infringement, and later applies this case's caution…

  • Pioneer Foods (Pty) Limited v Bothaville Milling (Pty) Limited(215/2013) [2014] ZASCA 6 (12 March 2014)
    Cites

    Court cites this case at paras 8 and 9 for examples of actual confusion in the market, including a misled customer and mix-up of products on shelves.

  • Yair Shimansky and My Light Holdings Proprietary Limited v Browns the Diamond Store Proprietary Limited(9/2014) [2014] ZASCA 214 (1 December 2014)
    Applies

    The principle that a word mark is recognizable as a whole and for what it conveys is applied to determine that visual distinctions and different meanings…

  • Yuppiechef Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Yuppie Gadgets Holdings (Pty) Ltd(1088/2015) [2016] ZASCA 118 (15 September 2016)
    Applies

    Applied for the test that judges must explain their impression on likelihood of deception or confusion and avoid undue scrutiny for similarities and…

Practice This Case

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

Explore More Cases

More Intellectual Property Law cases

  • Adams & Adams Attorneys v Pointer Fashion International CC(324/2013) [2014] ZASCA 11 (19 March 2014)
  • Adcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd and Another(265/2011) [2012] ZASCA 39 (29 March 2012)
  • Adidas AG & another v Pepkor Retail Limited(187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3 (28 February 2013)
  • African Distillers Limited v Varun Beverages (Zimbabwe) (Pvt) LtdHH 734-25, HCHC687/23
  • Aktiebolaget Hässle and Another v Triomed (Pty) LtdCase No: 63/2002
  • Alliance Property Group (Pty) Ltd v Alliance Group Limited and Auction Alliance KwaZulu-Natal (Pty) Ltd(252/2010) [2011] ZASCA 14 (14 March 2011)
  • A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v The Gap Inc and Others(123/2004) [2005] ZASCA 84
  • A M Moolla Group Limited and Others v The Gap, Inc and OthersCase No 543/03

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97