Plascon-Evans v Van Riebeeck Paints

Last updated

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1] is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

Contents

This appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division was heard in the Appellate Division by Corbett JA, Miller JA, Nicholas JA, Galgut AJA and Howard AJA on February 27, 1984, with judgment handed down on May 21, 1984. The appellant's attorneys were Spoor & Fisher, Pretoria, and Israel & A Sackstein, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Scher Webner & Co, Cape Town, and Lovius, Block, Meltz, Steyn & Yazbek, Bloemfontein.

The court found that a qualification was necessary to the general rule regarding final interdicts in motion proceedings. Sometimes the denial by the respondent of a fact alleged by the applicant may not be such as to raise a real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fact. If the respondent in such a case has failed to apply for the deponents concerned to be called for cross-examination, and if the court is satisfied as to the inherent credibility of the applicant's averments, the court may decide the disputed fact in the applicant's favour, without hearing oral evidence. This has come to be known as the "Plascon-Evans rule." [2] When factual disputes arise, therefore, relief should be granted only if the facts stated by the respondent, together with the admitted facts in the applicant's affidavits, justify the order. The court noted there may be exceptions to this general rule, as where the allegations or denials are so far-fetched that the court is justified in rejecting them on the papers.

It seemed to the court that the definition of "trade mark" in section 2 of the Trade Marks Act [3] was not appropriate to infringement proceedings. It seemed also that the notional-user test, deployed by the courts to determine whether or not there has been an infringement of a trade mark, posed difficulties where the actual proven user fell outside of the ambit of the plaintiff's monopoly.

The court found that the intention of the legislature in section 46(b) of the Act was to safeguard the use by the trader of words which were fairly descriptive of his goods and genuinely used for the purpose of describing the character and quality of those goods. Such use must not be a device for the achievement of some ulterior object.

Judgment

The rule was formulated in Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd [4] [5] that, where there is a dispute as to the facts, a final interdict should be granted in motion proceedings only if the facts as stated by the respondents, together with the admitted facts in the applicant's affidavit, justify such an order, or where it is clear that the facts, although not formally admitted, cannot be denied and must be regarded as admitted.

The court in the present matter found that this required clarification and perhaps qualification. In certain cases the denial by the respondent of a fact alleged by the applicant may not be such as to raise a real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fact. If, in such a case, the respondent has not availed himself of his right to apply for the deponents concerned to be called for cross-examination under Rule 6(5)(g) of the Uniform Rules of Court, and the court is satisfied as to the inherent credibility of the applicant's factual averment, it may proceed on the basis of the correctness thereof and include this fact among those upon which it determines whether the applicant is entitled to the final relief which he seeks. There may be exceptions to this general rule, as where the allegations or denials of the respondent are so far-fetched or clearly untenable that the court is justified in rejecting them merely on the papers.

It appeared to the court that, when considering whether or not an alleged infringer of the rights of the proprietor of a registered trade mark had unauthorisedly used a mark "as a trade mark" within the meaning of section 44(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, in certain situations problems would arise in the application of the statutory definition of "trade mark" in section 2 of the Act. It also appeared that the application of the notional-user test to determine infringement of a trade mark posed certain difficulties. If the actual proven user by the defendant fell outside the ambit of the plaintiff's monopoly, it could not be said that a notional fair and normal user of his mark, which had not in fact occurred, would trespass upon the plaintiff's monopoly.

What the legislature intended to safeguard by means of the provisions of section 46 (b) of the Act was the use by a trader, in relation to his goods, of words, which are fairly descriptive of his goods, genuinely for the purpose of describing the character or quality of the goods. The use of the words must not be a mere device to secure some ulterior object, as for example where the words are used in order to take advantage of the goodwill attaching to the registered trade mark of another.

The court held in casu that the use by the respondent, a dealer in paints and allied products, of the name "Mikacote" was an infringement of appellant's (also a dealer in paints) registered trade mark consisting of the word "Micatex." The court held, furthermore, that the word "Mikacote" was not a word in ordinary use but a fancy name which was not a fair description of the character or quality of the paint which it sold and was accordingly not protected by the provisions of s 46 (b) of the Act.

The decision of the full bench of the Cape Provincial Division, in Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd v Plascon-Evans Paints (Pty) Ltd , was thus overruled.

Related Research Articles

In English and English-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This is intended to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of South Africa</span> Legal system of the Republic of South Africa

South Africa has a 'hybrid' or 'mixed' legal system, formed by the interweaving of a number of distinct legal traditions: a civil law system inherited from the Dutch, a common law system inherited from the British, and a customary law system inherited from indigenous Africans. These traditions have had a complex interrelationship, with the English influence most apparent in procedural aspects of the legal system and methods of adjudication, and the Roman-Dutch influence most visible in its substantive private law. As a general rule, South Africa follows English law in both criminal and civil procedure, company law, constitutional law and the law of evidence; while Roman-Dutch common law is followed in the South African contract law, law of delict (tort), law of persons, law of things, family law, etc. With the commencement in 1994 of the interim Constitution, and in 1997 its replacement, the final Constitution, another strand has been added to this weave.

Legal interpretation in South Africa refers to the juridical understanding of South African legislation and case law, and the rules and principles used to construct its meaning for judicial purposes. Broadly speaking there are three means by which and through which South African scholars and jurists construe their country's statutory law: linguistics or semantics, common law and jurisprudence. Although statutory interpretation usually involves a personal predisposition to the text, the goal is generally to "concretise" it: to harmonise text and purpose. This is the final step in the interpretative process. Statutory interpretation is broadly teleological, comprising as it does first the evaluation and then the application of enacted law.

Theart and Another v Minnaar NO; Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, as well as in the area of legal interpretation. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 5, 2009, with judgment handed down on December 3. Mpati P, Brand JA, Snyders JA, Malan JA and Bosielo JA presided. Counsel for the appellants was BC Wharton; CHJ Maree appeared for the respondent in case No. 483/08 and M. Verster for the respondent in case No. 007/09. These were appeals from two decisions in the High Court, Cape Town. The appellants' attorneys were RP Totos, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 483/08 were Van der Spuy & Vennote, Cape Town, and Phatshoane Henney Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 007/09 were JC Van der Berg Attorneys, George, and Hill, McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein.

Adfin (Pty) Ltd v Durable Engineering Works (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure. An application to set aside the respondent's combined summons as an irregular proceeding, it was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Berman J on 16 February 1990. Judgment was handed down on 2 March. The applicant's attorneys were Saacks & Jaffe; the respondent's were Bornman & Hayward. E. Sakinofsky appeared for the applicant and LM Olivier for the respondent.

David Crouch Marketing CC v Du Plessis is an important case in South African labour law, with judgment handed down on June 17, 2009, the case having been heard on May 21, 2009. It was heard in the Labour Court in Johannesburg by Basson J. Snyman Attorneys represented the applicant; Mr Macartney of Macartney Attorneys appeared for the respondent. The case confirmed a legal principle.

Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African environmental law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division by Hurt J on March 29, 1995, with judgment handed down on December 15, 1995. Counsel for the applicant was CJ Hartzenberg SC ; DA Gordon SC appeared for the respondents. The applicant's attorney was the State Attorney; the respondents' attorneys were Venn, Nemeth & Hart.

Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.

Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane is an important case in South African law, heard in an Appellate Division comprising Botha JA, Smalberger JA, MT Steyn JA, FH Grosskopf JA and Nicholas AJA. The case was heard on November 5, 1990; judgment was delivered on November 30. The respondents' attorneys were SV Khampepe, Johannesburg, and EG Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. The appellants had the State Attorney.

Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on February 27, 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Ponnan JA and Mhlantla AJA presided. Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the full bench in the Cape Provincial Division regarding spoliation.

Barclays Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure; it was an appeal of Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius.

Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure.

Benlou Properties (Pty) Ltd v Vector Graphics (Pty) Ltd is an important case in the South African law of lease.

Eastern Cape v Contract Props, is an important case in the South African law of lease, where Eastern Cape entered into a contract of lease with the respondent, without complying with or without making use of procedures prescribed by the Provincial Tender Board Act.

New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO; Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO 2005 (2) SA 530 (C) is an important case in South African administrative law. However, note that this case went on appeal, first to the Supreme Court of Appeal and thereafter to the Constitutional Court, where the various judgments of Chaskalson, Ngcobo, Sachs, Moseneke and others had far-reaching effects on administrative law in South Africa. This article discusses the first hearing of this matter in the Cape Provincial Division. The final judgment is listed on SAFLII as Minister of Health and Another v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others [2005] ZACC 14.

In Magajane v Chairperson, North West Gambling Board is an important case in South African criminal procedure. Magajane sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional challenge to the provisions of section 65 of the North West Gambling Act. This challenge was on the ground that the provision violated his right to privacy by authorising inspectors to search his commercial premises and to seize items without a warrant. While the section authorised inspections of both licensed and unlicensed premises, he confined his challenge to inspections of unlicensed premises.

In Carelse v Estate De Vries, an important case in South African succession law, Carelse was seduced, on the promise of marriage, by the deceased. Carelse and the deceased continued their relationship, which produced seven children, before the deceased died intestate.

In Ex Parte Estate Davies, an important case in South African succession law, the testator bequeathed £2000 in his will to a person who was not named in the will itself, but on a document which was in a sealed envelope given to his attorney. This document was not signed by witnesses.

Kroukam v SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African labour law.

<i>R v Smith</i> (1900)

R v Smith is a case decided by the Special Court created by the Indemnity and Special Tribunals Act, 1900, sitting in the buildings of the Supreme Court of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. It relates to whether superior orders are an excuse or justification. It has been called a leading case.

References

Books

Cases

Notes

  1. ↑ 1984 (3) SA 623 (A).
  2. ↑ Peté and Hulme Civil Procedure 116, 133.
  3. ↑ Act 62 of 1963.
  4. ↑ 1957 (4) SA 234 (C).
  5. ↑ 235E-G.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.