LML4802
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 29 April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Kenzo can prevent Lungi from using the trademark VERSIONVIEW under the
private law of competition in South Africa by instituting an action for passing off,
despite the fact that his trademark VISIONVIEW is not registered locally.
Passing off occurs when one trader misrepresents their goods or business as
being associated with or identical to another’s, typically by using or imitating a
trade mark, name, or get-up that has become distinctive in the marketplace. This
principle was clearly articulated in Capital Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd
v Holiday Inns Inc 1977 (2) SA 916 (A), where the court held that passing off
consists of a representation by one person that their business or goods are those
of another, or connected to another’s. The test is whether the defendant’s
conduct creates a reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception in the minds of
the public.
To succeed in a passing off action, Kenzo must prove two essential elements:
1. That the mark VISIONVIEW has acquired a reputation in South Africa and
is associated by the public with Kenzo’s products.
2. That Lungi’s use of the similar mark VERSIONVIEW is likely to deceive or
confuse the public into believing that her products are associated with
Kenzo’s.
Regarding reputation, it is clear from the facts that Kenzo’s VISIONVIEW screens
are the most popular brand in South Africa, and they are distributed by an
authorised South African company, Manamela (Pty) Ltd. In Blue Lion
Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v National Brands Ltd 2001 (3) SA 884 (SCA), the court
stated that reputation may be established through extensive use and advertising
of a trade name or mark. Kenzo can therefore argue that VISIONVIEW has
acquired such a distinctive reputation.
As for deception, the similarity between the marks VISIONVIEW and
VERSIONVIEW (differing by only one letter) is likely to create confusion among
ordinary consumers. The court in Adcock-Ingram Products Ltd v Beecham SA
(Pty) Ltd 1977 (4) SA 434 (W) emphasized that the likelihood of deception or
confusion is enough for relief; actual confusion does not need to be proven.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 29 April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Kenzo can prevent Lungi from using the trademark VERSIONVIEW under the
private law of competition in South Africa by instituting an action for passing off,
despite the fact that his trademark VISIONVIEW is not registered locally.
Passing off occurs when one trader misrepresents their goods or business as
being associated with or identical to another’s, typically by using or imitating a
trade mark, name, or get-up that has become distinctive in the marketplace. This
principle was clearly articulated in Capital Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd
v Holiday Inns Inc 1977 (2) SA 916 (A), where the court held that passing off
consists of a representation by one person that their business or goods are those
of another, or connected to another’s. The test is whether the defendant’s
conduct creates a reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception in the minds of
the public.
To succeed in a passing off action, Kenzo must prove two essential elements:
1. That the mark VISIONVIEW has acquired a reputation in South Africa and
is associated by the public with Kenzo’s products.
2. That Lungi’s use of the similar mark VERSIONVIEW is likely to deceive or
confuse the public into believing that her products are associated with
Kenzo’s.
Regarding reputation, it is clear from the facts that Kenzo’s VISIONVIEW screens
are the most popular brand in South Africa, and they are distributed by an
authorised South African company, Manamela (Pty) Ltd. In Blue Lion
Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v National Brands Ltd 2001 (3) SA 884 (SCA), the court
stated that reputation may be established through extensive use and advertising
of a trade name or mark. Kenzo can therefore argue that VISIONVIEW has
acquired such a distinctive reputation.
As for deception, the similarity between the marks VISIONVIEW and
VERSIONVIEW (differing by only one letter) is likely to create confusion among
ordinary consumers. The court in Adcock-Ingram Products Ltd v Beecham SA
(Pty) Ltd 1977 (4) SA 434 (W) emphasized that the likelihood of deception or
confusion is enough for relief; actual confusion does not need to be proven.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
