McDonalds Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd and Another 1997 (1) SA 1 (A)

 McDonalds Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd and Another 1997 (1) SA 1 (A)

Facts

McDonald's Corporation (McDonald's) is a multinational fast food corporation that operates restaurants all over the world. McDonald's owns a number of registered trade marks, including the "Golden Arches" and the "Big Mac".

Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd (Joburgers) is a South African fast food restaurant chain. Joburgers opened a number of restaurants in South Africa using the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac".

McDonald's sued Joburgers for trade mark infringement and passing off. McDonald's claimed that Joburgers' use of the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac" was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers.

Issues

The main issues in the case were:

• Whether Joburgers' use of the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac" infringed McDonald's trade mark rights; and
• Whether Joburgers' use of the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac" was a passing off.

Reasons

The Appellate Division held that:

• Joburgers' use of the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac" infringed McDonald's trade mark rights; and
• Joburgers' use of the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac" was a passing off.

Trade mark infringement

The Appellate Division held that Joburgers' use of the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac" was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. The court found that the two trade marks were similar enough to be likely to cause confusion, and that the goods in relation to which the trade marks were used were similar (hamburgers and other fast food).

Passing off

The Appellate Division held that Joburgers' use of the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac" was a passing off. The court found that the overall impression created by Joburgers' use of the trade marks was that its restaurants were associated with McDonald's.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division granted an interdict restraining Joburgers from using the trade marks "Golden Arches" and "Big Mac".

Summary

The case of McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd and Another 1997 (1) SA 1 (A) is a landmark case in South African law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The test for trade mark infringement;
• The test for passing off; and
• The application of South African trade mark law to foreign trade marks.

Test for trade mark infringement

The Appellate Division in this case held that the test for trade mark infringement is whether the defendant's use of the trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. The court found that this test is in line with the test for trade mark infringement in other common law countries.

Test for passing off

The Appellate Division in this case held that the test for passing off is whether the defendant's use of the trade mark is likely to create the impression in the minds of consumers that the defendant's goods or services are associated with the plaintiff's goods or services. The court found that this test is in line with the test for passing off in other common law countries.

Application of South African trade mark law to foreign trade marks

The Appellate Division in this case held that South African trade mark law applies to foreign trade marks. The court found that this is necessary in order to protect the goodwill of foreign trade mark owners in South Africa.

Impact of the Case

The case of McDonald's Corporation v Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd and Another 1997 (1) SA 1 (A) has had a significant impact on the law of trade marks in South Africa. The case has established that the tests for trade mark infringement and passing off are the same as the tests in other common law countries. The case has also established that South African trade mark law applies to foreign trade marks.

Société des Produits Nestlé SA v International Foodstuffs Co 2013 JDR 2699 (GNP)

Société des Produits Nestlé SA v International Foodstuffs Co 2013 JDR 2699 (GNP)

Facts

Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Nestlé) is the owner of the registered trademark "MAGGI" for a variety of food products, including noodles. International Foodstuffs Co (IFC) is a South African company that sells a variety of food products, including noodles. IFC sold noodles under the trademark "MAGGI PLUS".

Nestlé sued IFC for trade mark infringement. Nestlé claimed that IFC's use of the trademark "MAGGI PLUS" infringed its registered trademark "MAGGI".

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether IFC's use of the trademark "MAGGI PLUS" infringed Nestlé's registered trademark "MAGGI".

Reasons

The Gauteng North High Court (GNP) held that IFC's use of the trademark "MAGGI PLUS" infringed Nestlé's registered trademark "MAGGI". The court reasoned that the two trademarks were similar enough to be likely to cause confusion among consumers.

Similarity of the trademarks

The GNP explained that the test for trade mark infringement is whether the two trademarks are similar enough to be likely to cause confusion among consumers. The court found that the trademarks "MAGGI" and "MAGGI PLUS" were similar enough to be likely to cause confusion among consumers because they were both pronounceable in the same way and they both began with the word "MAGGI".

Likelihood of confusion

The GNP also explained that the court must consider a number of factors in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers. These factors include:

• The degree of similarity between the two trademarks;
• The nature of the goods or services in relation to which the trademarks are used; and
• The knowledge of the average consumer.

The GNP found that there was a likelihood of confusion among consumers in this case because the two trademarks were similar and the goods in relation to which the trademarks were used were the same (noodles). The court also found that the average consumer would be likely to be confused by the two trademarks because they were both pronounceable in the same way and they both began with the word "MAGGI".

Conclusion

The GNP granted Nestlé an interdict interdicting and restraining IFC from using the trademark "MAGGI PLUS". The court also ordered IFC to pay Nestlé's costs.

500-Word Summary

The case of Société des Produits Nestlé SA v International Foodstuffs Co 2013 JDR 2699 (GNP) is an important case in South African trade mark law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The test for trade mark infringement; and
• The factors that the court will consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The GNP's decision that IFC's use of the trademark "MAGGI PLUS" infringed Nestlé's registered trademark "MAGGI" is significant. The decision means that businesses cannot use trademarks that are similar to the well-known trademarks of other businesses without their permission.

The GNP's decision to consider the knowledge of the average consumer in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers is also significant. The decision means that businesses need to be aware of the knowledge of the average consumer when choosing trademarks for their products.

adidas AG and Another v Pepkor Retail Ltd (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3

adidas AG and Another v Pepkor Retail Ltd (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3

Facts

adidas AG and Another (adidas) are the owners of four well-known registered trademarks for parallel stripes applied to their sporting footwear. Pepkor Retail Limited (Pepkor) is a South African retailer that sells a variety of products, including sporting footwear. Pepkor sold sporting footwear with two and four parallel stripes.

adidas sued Pepkor for trade mark infringement and passing off. Adidas claimed that Pepkor's use of two and four parallel stripes on its sporting footwear infringed its registered trademarks and was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. Adidas also claimed that Pepkor's get-up, incorporating four stripes, was a passing off.

Issues

The main issues in the case were:

• Whether Pepkor's use of two and four parallel stripes on its sporting footwear infringed adidas' registered trademarks; and
• Whether Pepkor's get-up, incorporating four stripes, was a passing off.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Pepkor's use of four parallel stripes on its sporting footwear infringed adidas' registered trademarks and that Pepkor's get-up, incorporating four stripes, was a passing off.

Trade mark infringement

The SCA explained that trade mark infringement occurs when a person uses a mark in the course of trade in relation to goods or services in a way that is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The court found that Pepkor's use of four parallel stripes on its sporting footwear was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers because consumers would be likely to think that the footwear was manufactured or endorsed by adidas.

Passing off

The SCA also explained that passing off occurs when a person misrepresents to the public that their goods or services are the goods or services of another person. The court found that Pepkor's get-up, incorporating four stripes, was a passing off because it was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers into thinking that the footwear was manufactured or endorsed by adidas.

Conclusion

The SCA granted adidas an interdict interdicting and restraining Pepkor from infringing adidas' registered trademarks and from passing off its footwear as adidas' footwear. The court also ordered Pepkor to pay adidas' costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Summary

The case of adidas AG and Another v Pepkor Retail Ltd (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3 is a landmark case in South African trade mark law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The test for trade mark infringement;
• The test for passing off; and
• The application of these tests to the use of parallel stripes on sporting footwear.

The SCA's decision that Pepkor's use of four parallel stripes on its sporting footwear infringed adidas' registered trademarks is significant. The decision means that businesses cannot use well-known trademarks of other businesses on their products without the permission of the trademark owners.

The SCA's decision that Pepkor's get-up, incorporating four stripes, was a passing off is also significant. The decision means that businesses cannot use the get-up of other businesses on their products to deceive or confuse consumers into thinking that their products are the products of the other businesses.

Verimark (Pty) Ltd v BMW AG 2007 (6) SA 263 (SCA)

Verimark (Pty) Ltd v BMW AG 2007 (6) SA 263 (SCA)

Facts

Verimark (Pty) Ltd (Verimark) was a South African retailer that sold car care products. Verimark produced a television advertisement for its car care products in which it used a depiction of a BMW vehicle. The advertisement showed the BMW vehicle being set on fire, but the Verimark products were able to prevent the fire from damaging the vehicle.

BMW AG (BMW) was the German manufacturer of BMW vehicles. BMW sued Verimark for trade mark infringement. BMW claimed that Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark in the advertisement was unauthorized and that it was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark in the advertisement constituted trade mark infringement.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark in the advertisement did not constitute trade mark infringement. The court reasoned that Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark was bona fide and that it was unlikely to cause confusion among consumers.

Bona fide use

The SCA explained that bona fide use of a trade mark is a defense to trade mark infringement. The court found that Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark in the advertisement was bona fide because Verimark was using the trade mark to indicate that its products were compatible with BMW vehicles.

Likelihood of confusion

The SCA also explained that trade mark infringement occurs when the use of a trade mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers. The court found that it was unlikely that Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark in the advertisement would cause confusion among consumers because the advertisement clearly showed that the BMW vehicle was not being damaged by the Verimark products.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed BMW's appeal and ordered BMW to pay Verimark's costs.

Summary

The case of Verimark (Pty) Ltd v BMW AG (2007 (6) SA 263 (SCA)) is a landmark case in South African trade mark law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The concept of bona fide use of a trade mark; and
• The concept of likelihood of confusion in trade mark infringement cases.

The SCA's decision that Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark in the advertisement was bona fide is significant. The decision means that businesses can use the trade marks of other businesses in their advertising if they are doing so to indicate that their products are compatible with the products of the other business.

The SCA's decision that it was unlikely that Verimark's use of the BMW trade mark in the advertisement would cause confusion among consumers is also significant. The decision means that businesses have greater freedom to use the trade marks of other businesses in their advertising, provided that they do not create a risk of confusion among consumers.

Beecham Group plc and Others v Triomed (Pty) Ltd 2003 (3) SA 639 (SCA)

Beecham Group plc and Others v Triomed (Pty) Ltd 2003 (3) SA 639 (SCA)

Facts

Beecham Group plc and Others (Beecham) were the owners of a registered trade mark for the shape of the antibiotic tablet Augmentin. Triomed (Pty) Ltd (Triomed) imported and sold a generic antibiotic tablet with the same shape as Augmentin. Beecham sued Triomed for trade mark infringement.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the shape of a tablet could be a valid trade mark.

Reasons

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that the shape of a tablet could not be a valid trade mark. The court reasoned that the shape of a tablet was a functional feature of the tablet and that functional features cannot be trade marks.

Functional features

The SCA explained that a functional feature is a feature of a product that is necessary to the use of the product or that gives the product a technical advantage. The court found that the shape of the Augmentin tablet was a functional feature because it was necessary to the use of the tablet and because it gave the tablet a technical advantage in terms of manufacturing and packaging.

Trade marks

The SCA also explained that a trade mark is a sign that distinguishes the goods or services of one person from the goods or services of other persons. The court found that the shape of the Augmentin tablet could not distinguish Beecham's tablets from the tablets of other manufacturers because any manufacturer could produce tablets with the same shape.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed Beecham's appeal and ordered Beecham to pay Triomed's costs.

Summary

The case of Beecham Group plc and Others v Triomed (Pty) Ltd (2003 (3) SA 639 (SCA)) is a landmark case in South African trade mark law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The concept of a functional feature;
• The concept of a trade mark; and
• The relationship between functional features and trade marks.

The SCA's decision that the shape of a tablet could not be a valid trade mark is significant. The decision means that businesses cannot obtain trade marks for functional features of their products. The decision also means that consumers cannot rely on the shape of a product to identify the source of the product.

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.

Min of Police v Mboweni [2014] ZASCA 107 (5 September 2014)

 Minister of Police v Mboweni [2014] ZASCA 107

Facts

Mr. Wisani Mahlati was arrested by the police and detained at the Ritavi police station. During his detention, two other prisoners in his cell assaulted him. The police did not detect the assault or do anything to prevent it. Mr. Mahlati died five days later from the injuries he sustained in the assault.

Mr. Mahlati's wife, Ms. Vonganai Sharon Mboweni, and their daughter sued the Minister of Police for damages, alleging that the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati.

The High Court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them damages. The Minister of Police appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati.

Reasons

The SCA held that the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati. The court reasoned that the police had a duty to protect Mr. Mahlati from harm while he was in their custody. The court also held that the police had failed to take reasonable steps to protect Mr. Mahlati from the assault.

The court noted that the police had been aware of the risk of assault in the cell where Mr. Mahlati was being held. However, the police had failed to take any steps to mitigate the risk. For example, the police had not separated Mr. Mahlati from the other prisoners in the cell.

The court also held that the police had failed to respond adequately to the assault on Mr. Mahlati. The police had not intervened to stop the assault and they had not provided Mr. Mahlati with medical assistance after the assault.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed the Minister of Police's appeal. The court upheld the High Court's finding that the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati and the court affirmed the High Court's award of damages to the plaintiffs.

Summary

The case of Minister of Police v Mboweni is a significant case in South African law. It is one of the first cases in which the SCA has considered the liability of the police for the death of a person in police custody.

The SCA's decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni is based on the following principles:

• The duty of care owed by the police to persons in their custody: The court held that the police have a duty to protect persons in their custody from harm. This duty is based on the principle that the police are in a position of control over persons in their custody and that they have a responsibility to ensure that those persons are safe.
• The standard of care required of the police: The court held that the police must exercise reasonable care to protect persons in their custody from harm. This means that the police must take all reasonable steps to prevent persons in their custody from being harmed.
• The liability of the police for the death of a person in police custody: The court held that the police will be liable for the death of a person in police custody if they breach their duty of care to that person and the breach of duty causes the person's death.

The SCA's decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni has a number of implications. First, it means that the police are now more accountable for the safety of persons in their custody. Second, the decision means that the police must take more proactive steps to protect persons in their custody from harm. Third, the decision means that the police are now more likely to be held liable for the death of a person in police custody.

The decision has been welcomed by some commentators, who argue that it is a victory for human rights and the rule of law. However, other commentators have criticized the decision, arguing that it will make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs and that it will lead to an increase in compensation claims against the police.

Overall, the decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni is a significant case in South African law. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the relationship between the police and the public.

Additional Considerations

The decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on the police: The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the police. Police officers will now need to be more careful to protect persons in their custody from harm. Police officers may also be more hesitant to arrest people or detain them in custody, for fear of being sued if something goes wrong.
• The impact of the case on the public: The decision is also likely to have a significant impact on the public.