South African Medical Association N.P.C v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (13788/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 580 (27 June 2024)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 580 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## South African Medical Association N.P.C v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (13788/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 580 (27 June 2024) South African Medical Association N.P.C v South African Medical Association Trade Union and Others (13788/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 580 (27 June 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_580.html sino date 27 June 2024 SAFLII Note: Page 5 and 6 images are not available in html and rtf versions, please refer to the PDF attachment for images. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 13788/22 (1)      REPORTABLE: [Y/ N ] (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: [Y/ N ] (3)      REVISED: [Y/ N ] (4)      Signature: Date: 27/06/2024 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCATION N.P.C. Applicant And SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TRADE UNION First Respondent GERHARD VOSLOO N.O Second Respondent REGISTRAR OF LABOUR RELATIONS Third Respondent And in the counter application of: SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TRADE UNION First Applicant GERHARD VOSLOO N.O Second Applicant And SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCATION N.P.C. First Respondent REGISTRAR OF LABOUR RELATIONS Second Respondent REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS Third Respondent JUDGMENT ASL VAN WYK AJ 1.          This is an application whereby the applicant in the main application, The South African Medical Association NPC (“SAMA”) seeks final interdicts against the first respondent in the main application, The South African Medical Association Trade Union (“SAMATU”) and the second respondent in the main application, Gerhard Vosloo N.O (“Vosloo), based on the common law cause of action passing-off and on the statutory infringement of its registered trademarks in terms of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (“the Trade Marks Act&rdquo ;), together with ancillary relief. 2.         SAMATU, together with Vosloo, filed a counter application on the basis that SAMA’s trade mark registrations constitute entries wrongly made and/or remaining on the register as provided for in section 24(1) of the Trade Marks Act and that they are vulnerable to expungement based on section 27 of the Trade Marks Act. 3. SAMA is a non-profit voluntary professional association. Its member base consists of medical practitioners in the public and private sector. All medical doctors and students registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa, qualify for SAMA membership. Initially, SAMA was named the Medical Association of South Africa and known by the acronym MASA. Its current name and acronym were adopted in 1998. 4.         The need arose for SAMA to represent its members with the forums that the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 established and it secured registration as a trade union in 1996. At that stage, the trade union was not a separate legal entity from SAMA. SAMA changed the trade unions name to the South African Medical Association Trade Union during 2022, to reflect the name change of SAMA from MASA. 5.          Internal disputes arose and the trade union was eventually separated from SAMA and an independent trade union, SAMATU, was established. 6.          In addition to rendering typical trade union services, SAMATU also offers a wide range of other services in which a trade union would not ordinarily engage, such as continuing professional development, webinars on medical malpractice litigation and on various other topics. 7.         SAMA is the registered proprietor, in South Africa, of the trade marks SAMA in class 42, and SAMA logo (depicted below) in classes 9, 16 and 42. 8.            SAMA argued that SAMATU infringed its registered rights by using the name SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TRADE UNION, the mark SAMATU and the SAMATU logo (depicted below), as contemplated by Section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. 9. SAMA further argued that it has acquired a significant reputation and common law rights in its logo, its name and acronym as indiciae of its services and that use of SAMATU’S logo and the acronym SAMATU, will lead to members of the public assuming that there is a connection between the parties, when in fact, there is not. 10. SAMATU has filed three applications for the trade mark SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TRADE UNION, SAMA and its logo in class 25. These applications have made on the basis of honest concurrent use or other special circumstances as contemplated by section 14 of the Trade Marks Act. SAMATU argued that once these trade marks proceed to registration, it might have an absolute defence against trade mark infringement and passing-off proceedings [1] . 11.        It, however, falls solely within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Marks to assess whether or not SAMATU is entitled to the registration of such marks. 12.               SAMATU argued that these proceedings should, accordingly, be stayed, pending the examination of its trade marks and the assessment as to whether or not they should be permitted registration. 13. The Constitution in the form of section 173 impliedly recognizes the court’s power to order a stay of proceedings in the appropriate circumstances. Section 173 states: " Inherent power. -The Constitutional Court,  Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice ." 14. A component of this power is the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of its process by staying proceedings in certain circumstances. This power should clearly be exercised in a circumscribed manner and only in exceptional circumstances [2] . It should be exercised with great caution and in clear cases as the courts are open to all and will only be closed in exceptional circumstances [3] . Due regard must also be had to section 34 of the Constitution which provides for the right to access to the courts. 15. Proceedings will be stayed when they are frivolous or vexatious or when their continuance amounts to an injustice or a serious embarrassment to one or other of the parties and the case will be regarded as vexatious when the action is hopeless, or success thereon becomes impossible. 16.               SAMATU argued that there exist exceptional circumstances that warrant a stay of the proceedings and that the stay will be in the interest of justice, in that the outcome of the applications before the Registrar of Trade Marks will impact both parties’ rights in the main application(s). 17.               It is not an essential pre-requisite for a court to find that the relevant proceedings are vexatious before it may grant a stay thereof, the demands of equity are the decisive factor. 18.               In my view, it would be non sensical for SAMATU to be interdicted at this stage to use its trade marks, only for it to obtain registration at a later stage and be permitted to use the exact same marks. Considering the history between the parties and principles of equity, I agree that SAMATU has, accordingly, demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant a stay of the proceedings and that it will be in the interest of justice to do so. 19.               In the circumstances the following order is made: 19.1       The application proceedings instituted by the applicant and First and Second Respondent in the main application(s), are stayed pending the registration or rejection of the trade mark applications filed by SAMATU in terms of section 14 of the Trade Marks Act, by the Registrar of Trade Marks. 19.2       No order as to costs. ASL VAN WYK ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Date of hearing:                                             22 MAY 2023 Date of judgment:                                           27 JUNE 2024 APPEARANCES: On behalf of applicant: Adv O Salmon SC Instructed by: McRobert Inc. On behalf of first and second respondents: Adv R Michau SC Instructed by: Serfontein Viljoen & Swart Attorneys [1] Turbek Trading CC v A &D Spitz Ltd and Another 2010 (2) ALL SA 284 (SCA). [2] Western Assurance Co v Caldwell's Trustee 1918 AD 262 at 274; Premier of Eastern Cape & Another v Dlava and Others 2013(3)SA 182 (ECM). [3] Fisheries Development Corporation of SA Limited v Jorgensen & Another; Fisheries Development Corporation of SA Limited v AWJ Investments ((PTY) Limited & Others 1979 (3) SA 1331 (W) at 1338 sino noindex make_database footer start