--- title: "Trade Mark Infringement Cases in South Africa" description: "Understand South African trade mark infringement, recent court cases, how to avoid brand, legal and financial risks through proper protection" image: https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Trade-mark-infringement-scaled-e1768823088800.jpg canonical: https://spoor.com/blog/trade-mark-infringement-cases-in-south-africa-lessons-for-business/ url: https://spoor.getmd.ai/blog/trade-mark-infringement-cases-in-south-africa-lessons-for-business/.md last_converted: 2026-05-13T18:45:20.640Z --- [Home](https://spoor.com) ›[Blog](https://spoor.com/blog/) › Trade Mark infringement cases in South Africa – lessons for business # Trade Mark infringement cases in South Africa – lessons for business Spoor & Fisher - 19 January 2026 ## Why trade mark infringement is a serious risk in SA For all branded businesses, brand identity is a critical asset – and failing to protect it or inadvertently infringing on another business’s [trade marks](https://spoor.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-trade-marks-in-south-africa/) can have serious consequences. Trade mark infringement claims can result in costly court battles, forced rebranding, PR crises, reputational damage, and even the destruction of infringing goods. Understanding the basics of trade marks, and learning from real-world examples of trade mark infringement cases in South Africa can help you safeguard your brand and avoid costly missteps. ## What qualifies as infringement? Under the Trade Marks Act South Africa, infringement occurs when a person uses a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trade mark in relation to the same or similar goods or services in respect of which the mark is registered, in a way that is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the minds of customers. This is not only limited to word marks (names) and devices (images or logos), but can also include slogans and sounds. Courts assess trade marks for similarity on three levels: visually, aurally and conceptually. Similarity on just one of these three levels is sufficient for trade marks to be confusingly similar. Even disclaimers (an endorsement that the trade mark owner does not claim exclusive rights in a particular word or element, usually because that element on its own is non-distinctive) won’t get you off the hook, if the trade mark as a whole is confusingly similar to the registered mark. Infringement can also entail licensing out a trade mark without the original owner’s approval – an issue that often creeps in with the local use of international brands. ## Examples of real South African cases ### iCollege v Xpertease (2023) This case involved the trade marks used by iCollege (Pty) Ltd and Xpertease Skills Development and Mentoring CC. iCollege is the owner of various registered trade marks for its iCOLLEGE Logo, which is registered in respect of education services. This logo incorporates a device (picture element) which features a graduation cape. Notably, these marks were registered subject to a disclaimer of the word “College” – meaning that iCollege could not claim exclusive rights in the word “College” separately and apart from its iCOLLEGE Logo trade mark. iCollege alleged that Xpertease was infringing its iCOLLEGE Logo trade marks through the use of a similar logo mark for iCOLLEGE ONLINE LEARNING – also featuring a graduation cape device (albeit different looking to the one in the iCOLLEGE Logo). The High Court initially ruled in favour of Xpertease, however, on appeal the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturned the High Court’s decision and ruled in favour of iCollege. The High Court had focused too much on the pictorial differences in the devices, ignoring the phonetic identity and overall impression of the marks. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the marks as wholes (including the disclaimed element “College”, which must still be taken into account when comparing the marks) were confusingly similar and likely to mislead consumers. The ruling confirms that a holistic test of visual, phonetic and conceptual brand identifiers should be done in infringement assessments. It is important to remember, however, that it is sufficient to show similarity on any of these three grounds. ### Adcock Ingram v Cipla-Medpro (2025) Adcock Ingram challenged Cipla-Medpro’s use of the trade mark FURIZOME, which it alleged infringed its well-known URIZONE mark. Both trade marks are used for medicines which are only available through a doctor’s prescription and are dispensed by pharmacists. The court found the names were “strikingly similar” and likely to confuse patients, despite the medicines being prescription-only. This is because patients are increasingly engaged in their own healthcare choices and may request a particular medicine by brand name. The court ruled in Adcock’s favour. The protection of trade mark rights extends to patient safety and public perception, highlighting how infringement can have real-world consequences beyond business competition. ### Lebohang Likotsi Hlathuka v Tammy Taylor Global Franchising & Others (2025) In a landmark Pretoria High Court ruling, Lebohang Hlathuka successfully challenged the unauthorised use of the TAMMY TAYLOR trade mark in South Africa. After paying R600,000 for what she believed was a legitimate franchise, Hlathuka discovered that Melany and Peet Viljoen, who purportedly owned the TAMMY TAYLOR trade mark in South Africa and franchised the brand, lacked any legal rights to use or license it locally. A register search confirmed that Tammy Taylor, Inc., based in the United States, was the lawful owner of the trade marks in South Africa. The court ordered the Viljoens to repay Hlathuka’s investment with interest, cease selling Tammy Taylor franchises in South Africa, and remove all references to TAMMY TAYLOR from all marketing, online and social channels within 30 days The couple has filed an appeal, temporarily delaying enforcement, but the ruling underscores a critical legal precept: use of a trade mark must be authorised and properly registered. Unauthorised brand use can result in trade mark infringement, financial restitution, and reputational damage. ## What the law says: remedies available under the Trade Marks Act There are a few ways that brand owners can seek relief against infringing marks. Under the Trade Marks Act, infringement remedies include: ● Interdicts (injunctions) to stop infringing use ● Damages (or a reasonably royalty in lieu thereof) ● Delivery-up of infringing goods Proceedings must be instituted in the High Court or via arbitration (if the parties agree to arbitration). The burden of proof lies with the trade mark owner to show infringement on a civil standard – on a balance of probabilities. It is possible, however, to explore other avenues to prevent infringing use pre-emptively. One example is a customs recordal, which allows a trade mark owner to register their trade mark with the customs authorities, so that the customs authorities can seize infringing goods at the border if they are of the view that those goods constitute trade mark infringement. The trade mark owner must, however, provide certain indemnities to the customs authorities as part of the recordal, to prevent abuse of the system. ## What to do if you’re infringed upon If you believe someone is infringing your registered trade mark, you can: ● Issue a cease-and-desist letter outlining your rights and demanding that they cease the infringing conduct ● Proceed with litigation or arbitration, supported by evidence such as proof of actual confusion, or evidence of reputation ● Enlist the help of Customs to seize infringing goods as they enter the country. Whether you’re enforcing your rights or defending against a claim, having the right legal guidance can make all the difference in how your trade mark issue is resolved. It is also important to enlist the help of legal professionals who truly understand trade mark law. Choosing the right trade mark attorney in South Africa can make all the difference. ## How to avoid infringing others ● Conduct a comprehensive Trade Mark search before adopting a mark or launching a new brand, preferably with the help of a legal professional. ● Use professional providers or Spoor & Fisher to interpret CIPC results and identify similar marks across classes. ● Consider phonetic, visual, and conceptual similarity, not just identical spelling. ● Work with a specialised attorney to help you with classification, clearance, and avoiding costly rebranding or litigation. ## Why you can trust Spoor & Fisher At Spoor & Fisher, we frequently assist clients in managing infringement risk – and we’ve done so successfully for over 100 years. In one recent case, a startup had planned to launch under a name that, after our clearance search, was found to be deceptively similar to a registered mark in a related service class. We advised them to rebrand before launch – saving them significant rebranding costs and avoiding potential litigation. “Infringement is not just about directly copying something – it’s about confusion. We help clients identify potential similarities, assess risk, and build defensible trade mark strategies.” ~ Spoor & Fisher Attorney ## Frequently Asked Questions #### What is the timeline for the registration of a trade mark in South Africa? The timelines differ from country to country. In South Africa, the trade mark registration process typically takes two to three years. However, on registration, rights in the trade mark date from when the application was filed. If a search was conducted before the filing of that application, a reasonable indication should be obtained as to whether or not objections can be expected. #### Is there an alternative to registering a trade mark in each country of interest? There are systems that make it possible to file a single application for registration of a trade mark in a number of countries. These systems are the international Madrid system, the CTM system in Europe and the ARIPO and OAPI systems in Africa. The international registration of trade marks through the Madrid system is an effective and relatively inexpensive way for trade mark owners to secure protection of their trade marks in a number of countries, by filing a single international registration application with a centralised office in Berne.South Africa. For example, has approved the ratification of the Madrid Protocol, but has not yet acceded to it. For this reason, South African entities cannot yet make use of this system, unless they have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment or domicile in a country that is a member of the system. The CTM system, which relates to a single European Community Trade Mark application, extends to all 28 member states of the European Union. The OAPI and ARIPO systems are regional systems in Africa and make it possible to obtain trade mark protection in a number of African countries by filing one trade mark application. South Africa is not a member of these systems, but South African entities can use them. #### Once registered, is my trade mark protected in countries other than the country of registration in South Africa? The rights of a trade mark are strictly territorial and are limited to the territory in which registration has been obtained or, in certain cases, where rights, through use or reputation, can be shown to exist. For example, registration in South Africa does not confer any rights in the trade mark in export markets, and a South African exporter is not shielded from possible infringement proceedings in the export country. Rights in the trade mark must be protected in each country of interest or potential interest by the best means possible; that is, by registration. #### How do I indicate that my trade mark is registered in South Africa? It is not compulsory to use the expression “Registered Trade Mark” or its symbol, ®, but this is advisable. In South Africa, if your trade mark is not yet registered, you can use the expression “Trade Mark” or the abbreviation ™, to make it clear that trade mark rights are claimed in the feature concerned. ## Conclusion: prevention is better than legal battles Trade mark infringement is not a hypothetical risk. It incurs serious financial, reputational, and business costs for well known brands. By understanding South African case law and taking proactive steps such as searching properly, registering early, and monitoring use – you can protect your brand and avoid disputes. As in the Tammy Taylor case, you can also avoid getting duped. Spoor & Fisher offers deep expertise on trade mark infringement and enforcement – so that you can protect your brand and business proactively, not reactively. We are trusted by South African startups, small and medium-sized businesses, and global corporations alike to safeguard their intellectual property rights.