--- title: "Raises Bar for Proving Similarity between Goods and/or Services" description: "An appeal by the Foschini Group – the proprietor in South Africa of the trade mark DUE SOUTH in various classes - to overturn a decision." image: https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Trade-Marks-3.jpg canonical: https://spoor.com/zh/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/ url: https://spoor.getmd.ai/zh/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/.md last_converted: 2026-09-21T18:24:04.358Z --- ```json { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@graph": [ { "@type": "Article", "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#article", "isPartOf": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/" }, "author": { "name": "Eben van Wyk and John Foster", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/person/b530ce8d4ab955905a8bfcbfb74bd765" }, "headline": "Decision Raises Bar for Proving Similarity between Goods and/or Services", "datePublished": "2013-03-14T12:42:51+00:00", "dateModified": "2026-07-30T04:11:29+00:00", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/" }, "wordCount": 879, "commentCount": 0, "publisher": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#organization" }, "image": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#primaryimage" }, "thumbnailUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Trade-Marks-3.jpg", "articleSection": [ "News Update" ], "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "potentialAction": [ { "@type": "CommentAction", "name": "Comment", "target": [ "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#respond" ] } ] }, { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/", "url": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/", "name": "Raises Bar for Proving Similarity between Goods and/or Services", "isPartOf": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#website" }, "primaryImageOfPage": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#primaryimage" }, "image": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#primaryimage" }, "thumbnailUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Trade-Marks-3.jpg", "datePublished": "2013-03-14T12:42:51+00:00", "dateModified": "2026-07-30T04:11:29+00:00", "description": "An appeal by the Foschini Group – the proprietor in South Africa of the trade mark DUE SOUTH in various classes - to overturn a decision.", "breadcrumb": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#breadcrumb" }, "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "potentialAction": [ { "@type": "ReadAction", "target": [ "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/" ] } ] }, { "@type": "ImageObject", "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#primaryimage", "url": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Trade-Marks-3.jpg", "contentUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Trade-Marks-3.jpg", "width": 1400, "height": 250, "caption": "trade mark" }, { "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "@id": "https://spoor.com/decision-raises-bar-for-proving-similarity-between-goods-and-or-services/#breadcrumb", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Home", "item": "https://spoor.com/" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Decision Raises Bar for Proving Similarity between Goods and/or Services" } ] }, { "@type": "WebSite", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#website", "url": "https://spoor.com/", "name": "Spoor & Fisher", "description": "", "publisher": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#organization" }, "potentialAction": [ { "@type": "SearchAction", "target": { "@type": "EntryPoint", "urlTemplate": "https://spoor.com/?s={search_term_string}" }, "query-input": { "@type": "PropertyValueSpecification", "valueRequired": true, "valueName": "search_term_string" } } ], "inLanguage": "zh-Hans" }, { "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#organization", "name": "Spoor & Fisher", "url": "https://spoor.com/", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/logo/image/", "url": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/200210-SP-Logo_RGB-01-screen-scaled.jpg", "contentUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/200210-SP-Logo_RGB-01-screen-scaled.jpg", "width": 2560, "height": 813, "caption": "Spoor & Fisher" }, "image": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/logo/image/" }, "sameAs": [ "https://www.facebook.com/spoorfisher/", "https://x.com/spoorfisher" ] }, { "@type": "Person", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/person/b530ce8d4ab955905a8bfcbfb74bd765", "name": "Eben van Wyk and John Foster", "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "@id": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1318f536e8c4782e9301c202089e77ec4bf8170f13d5a8953467d8af15365bf8?s=96&d=mm&r=g", "url": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1318f536e8c4782e9301c202089e77ec4bf8170f13d5a8953467d8af15365bf8?s=96&d=mm&r=g", "contentUrl": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1318f536e8c4782e9301c202089e77ec4bf8170f13d5a8953467d8af15365bf8?s=96&d=mm&r=g", "caption": "Eben van Wyk and John Foster" } } ] } ``` [家](https://spoor.com) › [知识中心](https://spoor.com/knowledge-centre/) › [法律更新/](https://spoor.com/zh/knowledge-centre/legal-updates/) › 决定提高了证明商品和/或服务之间相似性的门槛 # 决定提高了证明商品和/或服务之间相似性的门槛 埃本·范威克和约翰·福斯特 - 14 3 月 2013 Foschini 集团（“Foschini”）——南非各类别商标 DUE SOUTH（文字商标）的所有人——提出上诉，要求推翻商标注册官接受 Jan Frederick Coetzee 申请的决定（“ Coetzee”）在第 16、29、30 和 41 类（DUE-SOUTH 标志商标）中注册的商标 DUE-SOUTH & DEVICE 最近被北豪登高等法院驳回，理由是商品和/或服务申请注册的 DUE-SOUTH 标志商标与注册 Foschini 的 DUE SOUTH 商标的商标并不相似。 Foschini 的 DUE SOUTH 商标用于一系列迎合户外和探险爱好者的高档零售店。在 Foschini 反对时，南非有 21 家商店以 DUE SOUTH 的名义经营。Coetzee 经营一家手工艺品商店，旨在推广南非本土的手工艺品。 Coetzee 商店的主要重点是确定南非的大部分手工艺项目和文化旅游点，其中还涉及出版一系列旅游指南和省级路线图。他的应用程序是用于与他的商店相关的徽标（如下所示）。Foschini 的异议是基于其在第 8、9、11、21、28 和 35 类中的注册以及 1993 年 194 年《商标法》（“该法”）第 10(14) 条的规定，其中特别规定商标不得如果它“......与属于不同所有人的注册商标相同或相似，以至于其在寻求注册的商品或服务上的使用与相同或相似对于注册该商标的商品或服务，可能会欺骗或引起混淆……”（强调添加）。Foschini 辩称，DUE-SOUTH LOGO 商标与其注册的 DUE SOUTH 商标高度相似，因此，相应商品和/或服务之间的相似程度需要远低于相应商标不太相似的情况。 Foschini 的律师提交了相应商品和/或服务之间“某些相似性”的证据，足以成功证明第 10(14) 条要求的欺骗或混淆的可能性。Coetzee 反驳了 Foschini 关于商标分类系统的论点，他认为该系统已经到位，以允许类似（甚至相同）的商标存在并被不同的所有人用于不同的商品和/或服务。 Coetzee 认为，起点应该是分类系统本身，商品和/或服务属于不同类别的事实至少从表面上表明商品和服务并不相似。 法院重申了分类系统的重要性以及仅在申请人实际打算发挥作用的类别中要求保护的重要性。它发现，这是对商标注册反竞争做法的必要限制，忽视这一点将导致商标所有人享有不合理的广泛垄断。综上所述，法院认为，必须从“不能轻易认定相似”为前提。 在考虑商品和/或服务的相似性时，法院应用了 Adcock Ingram v Cipla Medpro 2012 (4) SA 238 (SCA)（2012 年 3 月 29 日）中制定的测试，认定这不是注册申请人（Coetzee )正在做的事情或他说他打算做的事情，但如果就所申请的类别中的所有货品获得批准，他将被允许做的事情。 在考虑注册 Foschini 商标的商品和/或服务是否与 Coetzee 寻求注册 DUE-SOUTH 标志商标的商品和/或服务相似时，法院对各种商品和/或服务进行了比较。其中一项比较是在第 29 类和第 30 类（食品类）中的商品与 Foschini 的第 8、11 和 21 类注册之间进行的比较。法院认定，“烹饪用具、厨房用具、容器、玻璃器皿、瓷器和陶器可被视为与食物相似，超出了我的范围”。法院还发现，在将第 9 类（“……教学仪器和仪器……”）与第 41 类（“教育、提供培训……”）进行比较时，“您不能将用于某些活动的物品的生产和销售与通过使用这些商品提供的服务”。在 Mettenheimer & Another v Zonquasdrif Vineyards CC & Another (18998/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 69（2012 年 6 月 13 日）一案作出裁决后不久，这些发现提高了证明商品和/或服务之间相似性的标准。 ，其中根据法案第 34(1)(b) 条，为了确定侵权诉讼中存在欺骗或混淆的可能性，葡萄（第 31 类）与葡萄酒（第 33 类）不相似。Zonquasdrif 和 Due South 的判决显然都在上诉之中。编译： [埃本·范维克 ](https://spoor.com/our-people/eben-van-wyk/) 和[ 约翰福斯特](https://spoor.com/our-people/john-foster/) 本文于 2013 年 2 月首次发表于 WTR Daily，属于 World Trademark Review 的一部分。 如需更多信息，请访问 [www.worldtrademarkreview.com](https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/)