Geo Equip Africa (Pty) Ltd v Geobrugg Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (2023/106927) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1257 (31 October 2023)

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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 1257 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Geo Equip Africa (Pty) Ltd v Geobrugg Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (2023/106927) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1257 (31 October 2023) Geo Equip Africa (Pty) Ltd v Geobrugg Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (2023/106927) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1257 (31 October 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1257.html sino date 31 October 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2023/106927 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED 01/11/23 In the matter between: GEO EQUIP AFRICA (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And GEOBRUGG SOUTHERN AFRICA (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT WRIGHT J - The applicant company imports and sells wire mesh. The respondent is a trade competitor. There is patent litigation between the two which is pending. The applicant company imports and sells wire mesh. The respondent is a trade competitor. There is patent litigation between the two which is pending. - The respondent told at least one customer of the applicant that the applicant sold counterfeit wire mesh. The respondent told at least one customer of the applicant that the applicant sold counterfeit wire mesh. - On 13 October 2023, the respondent undertook in writing to the applicant not to “make further statements in relation to counterfeit goods to potential clients in South Africa.” The letter stated that an amended undertaking would be sent to the applicant in due course. On 13 October 2023, the respondent undertook in writing to the applicant not to “ make further statements in relation to counterfeit goods to potential clients in South Africa .” The letter stated that an amended undertaking would be sent to the applicant in due course. - The applicant seeks an urgent interdict. The applicant seeks an urgent interdict. - It says that the matter is urgent as it needs to protect its name and standing in the market. It says that the matter is urgent as it needs to protect its name and standing in the market. - It is the applicant’s case that the defamation was made to the applicant and potential customers of the applicant but that the undertaking not to repeat the counterfeit allegation was given only to the applicant and that therefore, because no retraction has been made to the applicant’s customers, the applicant is prejudiced in the market. It is the applicant’s case that the defamation was made to the applicant and potential customers of the applicant but that the undertaking not to repeat the counterfeit allegation was given only to the applicant and that therefore, because no retraction has been made to the applicant’s customers, the applicant is prejudiced in the market. - In the answering affidavit, the respondent accuses the applicant of infringing the respondent’s oversees parent company’s registered trade mark, Blast On. Although the trade mark is not yet registered in South Africa, the holding company intends seeking registration as soon as possible. In the answering affidavit, the respondent accuses the applicant of infringing the respondent’s oversees parent company’s registered trade mark, Blast On. Although the trade mark is not yet registered in South Africa, the holding company intends seeking registration as soon as possible. - There is no counter-application. There is no counter-application. - In the replying affidavit, the applicant undertakes to remove all reference on its website to Blast On and the applicant undertakes to remove certain images which the respondent says infringes its copyright. In the replying affidavit, the applicant undertakes to remove all reference on its website to Blast On and the applicant undertakes to remove certain images which the respondent says infringes its copyright. - In my view, the applicant is entitled, not only to a retraction, which it has, but also to an order that the respondents send a retraction to the persons to whom the counterfeit allegation was made. In my view, the applicant is entitled, not only to a retraction, which it has, but also to an order that the respondents send a retraction to the persons to whom the counterfeit allegation was made. - In argument, Mr Bester SC for the respondent said that the undertaking, referred to by his client was overtaken by the launching of the application. This excuse is very weak. Nothing has stopped the respondent from giving what it said it would give. In argument, Mr Bester SC for the respondent said that the undertaking, referred to by his client was overtaken by the launching of the application. This excuse is very weak. Nothing has stopped the respondent from giving what it said it would give. - On the evidence, the only inference to be drawn is that when the respondent sent the counterfeit statement to at least one customer or potential customer of the applicant the motive was to decrease the applicant’s chances of being awarded a contract or contracts. On the evidence, the only inference to be drawn is that when the respondent sent the counterfeit statement to at least one customer or potential customer of the applicant the motive was to decrease the applicant’s chances of being awarded a contract or contracts. - The applicant is entitled to a temporary order, operating with immediate effect, costs reserved, to the effect that the statements be withdrawn and there be no related interference with its business. The applicant is entitled to a temporary order, operating with immediate effect, costs reserved, to the effect that the statements be withdrawn and there be no related interference with its business. ORDER - X as amended. - X as amended. - GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD  :  31 October 2023 DELIVERED :  31 October 2023 APPEARANCES  : APPLICANTS  Adv R Michau SC reinard@clubadvocates.co.za 083 288 2345 Adv L Haril LHarilal@clubadvocates.co.za 082 467 7684 Instructed by Smit & Van Wyk Inc, per Wessel Van Wyk and Niel Meirng RESPONDENT  Adv AJ Bester SC bertbester@law.co.za 082 567 0591 Adv P Ferreira pferreira@clubadvocates.co.za 082 872 3378 Instructed by Dr Gernholtz Inc per Otto Gernholtz info@gerntlholtz.com sino noindex make_database footer start