Payen Components SA Ltd v Bovic Gaskets CC and Others 1995 (4) SA 441 (A) 29

Payen Components SA Ltd v Bovic Gaskets CC and Others 1995 (4) SA 441 (A) 29

Facts

Payen Components SA Ltd (Payen) was a South African company that manufactured and sold gaskets. Bovic Gaskets CC (Bovic) was a South African company that also manufactured and sold gaskets.

Payen had developed a number of unique gasket identification codes, which were used to identify different types of gaskets. Bovic began using Payen's gasket identification codes in its own price lists and catalogues.

Payen sued Bovic for passing off. Payen claimed that Bovic's use of its gasket identification codes was likely to deceive or confuse consumers into thinking that Bovic's gaskets were associated with Payen.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Bovic's use of Payen's gasket identification codes was a passing off.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Bovic's use of Payen's gasket identification codes was a passing off. The court found that the gasket identification codes were distinctive and that Bovic's use of the codes was likely to create the impression in the minds of consumers that Bovic's gaskets were associated with Payen.

Passing off

The court held that the following elements of passing off were present in the case:

• Goodwill: Payen had goodwill in its gasket identification codes.
• Misrepresentation: Bovic's use of Payen's gasket identification codes was likely to misrepresent to consumers that Bovic's gaskets were associated with Payen.
• Damage: Payen was likely to suffer damage as a result of Bovic's misrepresentation.

Conclusion

The court granted an interdict restraining Bovic from using Payen's gasket identification codes.

Summary

The case of Payen Components SA Ltd v Bovic Gaskets CC and Others 1995 (4) SA 441 (A) 29 is a landmark case in South African law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The law of passing off;
• The concept of goodwill;
• The elements of passing off; and
• The application of the law of passing off to product identification codes.

Law of passing off

The case established that the law of passing off protects the goodwill of businesses by preventing businesses from misrepresenting their goods or services as being those of another business.

Concept of goodwill

The case established that goodwill is the reputation and standing of a business in the minds of consumers. Goodwill can be attached to a business's name, trade marks, product identification codes, and other business assets.

Elements of passing off

The case established that the following elements must be present in order for a passing off claim to succeed:

• The plaintiff must have goodwill in a particular business asset, such as a trade mark, product identification code, or get-up.
• The defendant must misrepresent its goods or services as being those of the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff must be likely to suffer damage as a result of the defendant's misrepresentation.

Application of the law of passing off to product identification codes

The case established that the law of passing off can be applied to product identification codes. The case also established that the courts will consider a number of factors in determining whether the use of a product identification code is a passing off, including the distinctiveness of the code, the extent to which the code is used by the plaintiff and other businesses, and the likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Bosal Afrika (Pty) Ltd v Grapnel (Pty) Ltd and Another 1985 (4) SA 882 (C)

Bosal Afrika (Pty) Ltd v Grapnel (Pty) Ltd and Another 1985 (4) SA 882 (C)

Facts

Bosal Afrika (Pty) Ltd (Bosal) and Grapnel (Pty) Ltd (Grapnel) were both South African manufacturers of exhaust systems. Bosal published a price list for its exhaust systems. Grapnel copied Bosal's price list and distributed it to its customers. Bosal claimed that Grapnel had infringed its copyright in its price list. Grapnel denied copyright infringement.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Grapnel had infringed Bosal's copyright in its price list.

Reasons

The Cape Provincial Division (CPD) held that Grapnel had not infringed Bosal's copyright in its price list. The court reasoned that Bosal's price list was not an original work and that it was not protected by copyright.

Originality

The CPD explained that copyright protects original works. A work is original if it is the result of the author's skill and labor and is not a mere copy of another work. The court found that Bosal's price list was not original because it was based on existing price lists of other manufacturers.

Copyright protection for price-lists

The CPD also held that price lists are generally not protected by copyright. The court reasoned that price lists are functional works and that copyright does not protect functional works.

Conclusion

The CPD dismissed Bosal's claim.

Summary

The case of Bosal Afrika (Pty) Ltd v Grapnel (Pty) Ltd and Another (1985 (4) SA 882 (C)) is an important case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The concept of originality in copyright law;
• The scope of copyright protection for price lists; and
• The distinction between functional works and literary works.

The CPD's decision that Bosal's price list was not an original work is significant. The decision means that copyright does not protect price lists that are based on existing price lists. The CPD's decision that price lists are generally not protected by copyright is also significant. The decision means that businesses can freely copy the price lists of their competitors.

Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd v SA Fax Listings 1990 (2) SA 164 (D)

Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd v SA Fax Listings 1990 (2) SA 164 (D)

Facts

Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd (Fax Directories) published a fax directory called "The Pink Pages". SA Fax Listings CC (SA Fax Listings) published a similar fax directory called "The Yellow Fax Pages". Fax Directories claimed that SA Fax Listings had infringed its copyright in "The Pink Pages". SA Fax Listings denied copyright infringement.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether SA Fax Listings had infringed Fax Directories' copyright in "The Pink Pages".

Reasons

The Durban and Coast Local Division (DCLD) held that SA Fax Listings had not infringed Fax Directories' copyright in "The Pink Pages". The court reasoned that Fax Directories' copyright in "The Pink Pages" did not extend to the selection and arrangement of the information in the directory.

Copyright in compilations

The DCLD explained that copyright protects compilations of information if the compilation is original and the result of the compiler's skill and labor. However, copyright does not protect the selection and arrangement of information in a compilation if the selection and arrangement are dictated by the nature of the information or is a common practice in the trade.

Selection and arrangement of the information in the fax directory

The DCLD found that the selection and arrangement of the information in the fax directory was dictated by the nature of the information and was a common practice in the trade. The court reasoned that the fax directory was simply a list of businesses and their fax numbers and that there was only one logical way to arrange this information.

Conclusion

The DCLD dismissed Fax Directories' application for an interdict to prevent SA Fax Listings from publishing and distributing "The Yellow Fax Pages".

Summary

The case of Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd v SA Fax Listings (1990 (2) SA 164 (D)) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the scope of copyright protection for compilations of information.

The DCLD's decision that Fax Directories' copyright in "The Pink Pages" did not extend to the selection and arrangement of the information in the directory is significant. The decision means that copyright does not protect the way that information is arranged in a compilation unless the selection and arrangement are original and the result of the compiler's skill and labor.

Jacana Education (Pty) Ltd v Frandsen Publishers (Pty) Ltd 1998 (2) SA 965 (SCA)

Jacana Education (Pty) Ltd v Frandsen Publishers (Pty) Ltd 1998 (2) SA 965 (SCA)

Facts

Jacana Education (Pty) Ltd (Jacana) and Frandsen Publishers (Pty) Ltd (Frandsen) were both South African publishers. Jacana published a map of the Kruger National Park, while Frandsen published a similar map. Jacana claimed that Frandsen had infringed its copyright in its map. Frandsen denied copyright infringement.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Frandsen had infringed Jacana's copyright in its map.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Frandsen had not infringed Jacana's copyright in its map. The court reasoned that Jacana's map was not original and that there were too many differences between the two maps to constitute copyright infringement.

Originality

The SCA explained that copyright protects original works. A work is original if it is the result of the author's skill and labor and is not a mere copy of another work. The court found that Jacana's map was not original because it was based on existing maps of the Kruger National Park.

Differences between the two maps

The SCA also found that there were too many differences between the two maps to constitute copyright infringement. The court reasoned that the two maps had different layouts, different scales, and different symbols.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed Jacana's appeal.

Summary

The case of Jacana Education (Pty) Ltd v Frandsen Publishers (Pty) Ltd (1998 (2) SA 965 (SCA)) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The concept of originality in copyright law; and
• The scope of copyright protection.

The SCA's decision that Jacana's map was not original is significant because it confirms that copyright does not protect works that are based on existing works. The SCA's decision that there were too many differences between the two maps to constitute copyright infringement is also significant because it confirms that copyright infringement does not occur simply because one work is similar to another work.

Galago Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Erasmus 1989 (1) SA 276 (A)

Galago Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Erasmus 1989 (1) SA 276 (A)

Facts

Galago Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Another (Galago) published a book called "Top Secret War". The book was a collection of articles about the South African Border War. Erasmus, a former soldier, wrote one of the articles. Erasmus later wrote another article, called "Pictorial Account of the South African Border War". In this article, Erasmus copied large parts of his article from "Top Secret War" without permission from Galago.

Galago sued Erasmus for copyright infringement. Erasmus argued that he had not infringed Galago's copyright because he had copied his own work.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Erasmus had infringed Galago's copyright by copying his own work.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Erasmus had infringed Galago's copyright. The court reasoned that Galago owned copyright in the layout of the articles in "Top Secret War", and that Erasmus had copied the layout of his article from "Top Secret War".

Layout of the articles

The SCA explained that copyright protects the layout of a book if the layout is original and the result of the author's skill and labor. The court found that the layout of the articles in "Top Secret War" was original and that it was the result of Galago's skill and labor.

Copying of the layout

The SCA also found that Erasmus had copied the layout of his article from "Top Secret War". The court reasoned that there were too many similarities between the layout of Erasmus' article and the layout of the articles in "Top Secret War" to be a coincidence.

Conclusion

The SCA allowed Galago's appeal and ordered Erasmus to pay damages for copyright infringement.

Summary

The case of Galago Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Erasmus (1989 (1) SA 276 (A)) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The scope of copyright protection; and
• The meaning of originality in copyright law.

The SCA's decision that copyright protects the layout of a book if the layout is original and the result of the author's skill and labor is significant. The decision means that authors have copyright in the overall design of their books, including the arrangement of the text, images, and other elements on the page.

The SCA's decision that Erasmus had copied the layout of his article from "Top Secret War" is also significant. The decision means that copyright infringement can occur even if the infringer copies their own work. If the infringer copies the layout of their work from a protected work, they may infringe the copyright in the protected work.

King v South African Weather Service 2009 (3) SA 13 (SCA)

King v South African Weather Service 2009 (3) SA 13 (SCA)

Facts

Mr. Pieter King was a long-term employee of the South African Weather Service (SAWS). He was a meteorological technical officer in charge of the SAWS's Upington office. During his employment, Mr. King developed a number of computer programs that were used by the SAWB to forecast weather and store meteorological data.

In 2002, Mr. King left the SAWS. He informed the SAWS that he was the author of the computer programs and that they were not subject to the SAWS's copyright. The SAWS demanded that Mr. King hand over the source codes for the computer programs, but he refused.

The SAWS instituted disciplinary action against Mr. King for insubordination and suspended him from his duties. Mr. King challenged the SAWS's disciplinary action in court. He also claimed copyright in the computer programs and sought an interdict to prevent the SAWS from using the programs.

Issues

The main issues in the case were:

• Whether Mr. King was the author of the computer programs;
• Whether the computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright; and
• Whether the SAWB was entitled to discipline Mr. King for refusing to hand over the source codes for the computer programs.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that:

• Mr. King was the author of the computer programs;
• The computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright; and
• The SAWS was entitled to discipline Mr. King for refusing to hand over the source codes for the computer programs.

Authorship

The SCA found that Mr. King was the author of the computer programs because he had created them independently and with his own skill and labor. The court explained that authorship is not determined by the purpose for which a work is created or the amount of skill and labor required to create it.

Copyright

The SCA found that the computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright because they were created by Mr. King in the course of his employment with the SAWS. The court explained that copyright in a work created by an employee in the course of their employment belongs to the employer.

Disciplinary action

The SCA found that the SAWS was entitled to discipline Mr. King for refusing to hand over the source codes for the computer programs. The court explained that Mr. King had a duty to obey the SAWS's lawful instructions and that his refusal to hand over the source codes was insubordination.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed Mr. King's appeal and upheld the SAWS's disciplinary action.

500-Word Summary

The case of King v South African Weather Service (2009 (3) SA 13 (SCA) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The concept of authorship in copyright law;
• The ownership of copyright in works created by employees; and
• The rights of employers over works created by their employees.

The SCA's decision that Mr. King was the author of the computer programs is significant because it confirms that authorship is not determined by the purpose for which a work is created or the amount of skill and labor required to create it. The SCA's decision that the computer programs were subject to the SAWS's copyright is also significant because it confirms that employers own copyright in works created by their employees in the course of their employment.

Additional Considerations

The decision in King v South African Weather Service also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on innovation: The decision may have a negative impact on innovation. Employees may be less likely to develop new works if they know that the copyright in their creations will belong to their employer.
• The impact of the case on competition: The decision may have a positive impact on competition. Employers will be able to compete more effectively if they own copyright in the works created by their employees.
• The impact of the case on consumers: The decision may have a negative impact on consumers. Consumers may have less choice of products if employers are less likely to allow their employees to develop new works.

Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd v Saunders Valve Co Ltd 1987 (2) SA 1 (A)

Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd v Saunders Valve Co Ltd 1987 (2) SA 1 (A)

Facts

Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd (Klep Valves) was a South African company that manufactured valves. Saunders Valve Co Ltd (Saunders Valve) was a British company that also manufactured valves. Klep Valves made copies of Saunders Valve's drawings and used them to manufacture its own valves. Saunders Valve sued Klep Valves for copyright infringement.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Klep Valves had infringed Saunders Valve's copyright in its drawings.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Klep Valves had infringed Saunders Valve's copyright in its drawings. The court reasoned that the drawings were original works and that they were protected by copyright.

The court explained that copyright protects original works, such as literary works, artistic works, and musical works. The court found that the drawings were original works because they were the product of Saunders Valve's own skill and labor.

The court also found that Klep Valves had infringed Saunders Valve's copyright by copying the drawings. The court reasoned that there was no evidence that Klep Valves had created the drawings independently of Saunders Valve's drawings.

Conclusion

The SCA allowed Saunders Valve's appeal and ordered Klep Valves to pay damages for copyright infringement.

Summary

The case of Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd v Saunders Valve Co Ltd (1987 (2) SA 1 (A)) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the concept of originality in copyright law.

The SCA's decision that the drawings were original works protected by copyright is significant. The decision means that copyright protects even simple works, such as engineering drawings, as long as they are original.

The decision in Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd v Saunders Valve Co Ltd has had a lasting impact on the law of copyright in South Africa. The decision is cited in subsequent cases, and it is likely to be cited in many more cases in the future.

Additional Considerations

The decision in Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd v Saunders Valve Co Ltd also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on innovation: The decision may have a positive impact on innovation. Businesses will be more likely to invest in research and development if they know that their copyright in their creations will be protected.
• The impact of the case on competition: The decision may have a negative impact on competition. Businesses that compete to sell products that are protected by copyright may have difficulty competing if they cannot copy the copyright-protected products of their competitors.
• The impact of the case on consumers: The decision may have a negative impact on consumers. Consumers may have less choice of products if businesses are less likely to create new products due to the risk of copyright infringement.

Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd 1995 (1) SA 645 (A)

 Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd 1995 (1) SA 645 (A)

Facts

Waylite Diary CC (Waylite) designed and produced a customized diary for First National Bank Ltd (FNB) in 1987. The diary was a success, and FNB commissioned Waylite to produce similar diaries for 1989, 1990, and 1991. In 1992, FNB invited tenders for the supply of diaries for 1992. Waylite submitted a tender, but FNB awarded the tender to another company.

Waylite claimed that FNB had infringed its copyright in the layout of the appointment pages of the diary. Waylite argued that the layout of the appointment pages was an original artistic work and that it was protected by copyright.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was an original artistic work protected by copyright.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was not an original artistic work protected by copyright. The court reasoned that the layout of the appointment pages was too functional to be considered artistic.

The court explained that copyright protects original artistic works, such as paintings, sculptures, and drawings. However, copyright does not protect functional works, such as engineering drawings and computer programs.

The court found that the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was a functional work. The court reasoned that the layout was designed to be used to record appointments and that it was not intended to be enjoyed for its aesthetic value.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed Waylite's appeal.

Summary

The case of Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd (1995 (1) SA 645 (A)) is a landmark case in South African copyright law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the distinction between artistic works and functional works.

The SCA's decision that the layout of the appointment pages of the diary was not an original artistic work protected by copyright is significant. The decision means that copyright does not protect functional works, even if they are original.

The decision in Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd has had a lasting impact on the law of copyright in South Africa. The decision is cited in subsequent cases, and it is likely to be cited in many more cases in the future.

Additional Considerations

The decision in Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on creativity: The decision may have a negative impact on creativity. Creators of functional works may be less likely to create new works if they know that their copyright is not protected.
• The impact of the case on competition: The decision may have a positive impact on competition. Businesses that compete to sell functional works will be able to compete more freely if they do not have to worry about copyright infringement.
• The impact of the case on consumers: The decision may have a negative impact on consumers. Consumers may have less choice of functional products if businesses are less likely to create new functional works.

Overall, the decision in Waylite Diary CC v First National Bank Ltd is a complex case with a number of implications. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the law of copyright in South Africa and on other areas of law.