Loading...

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC [2019] HIPL 96 (SCUSA)

Petitioner Mission Product Holdings, Inc., entered into a contract with Respondent Tempnology, LLC, which gave Mission a license to use Tempnology's trademarks in connection with the distribution of certain clothing and accessories. Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought to reject its agreement with Mission. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract"—meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. 11 U. S. C. §365(a).

By |2021-07-13T19:18:10+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, United States|

Genetic Patenting: The Saga Between Sequenom, Inc. V Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc [2019] HIPR 89 (FCA)

The patent rights associated with non-invasive prenatal genetic testing based on maternal blood sampling lay at the heart of the litigation between the parties in this matter. In the Australian Federal Court, Sequenom, as owner of a patent in that regard, accused Ariosa of infringement of its patent.

By |2021-07-13T11:28:42+02:0013 July 2021|Australia, Case Law & Judgements|

Manuel v Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd and another [2020] HIPR 109 (GP)

Based on an article published in the media, the applicant believed that his personal information had been unlawfully obtained and disclosed, and that he had been subjected to unlawful surveillance. The article claimed that Manuel and his wife (Ramos) had been subject to unlawful surveillance, and that their personal details, including particulars of their travel arrangements, had been collected and disclosed to the respondents.

By |2021-07-13T11:13:06+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Hudaco Trading (Pty) Ltd v Apex Superior Quality Parts (Pty) Ltd and others [2021] HIPR 167 (GJ)

In 2014, the applicant (“Hudaco”) acquired the Partquip business which conducted business in the aftermarket replacement automotive parts industry and was housed in a separate division within Hudaco. The first respondent (“Apex”) was a new competitor in the market and also supplied aftermarket replacement parts to motor vehicles and industrial bearings.

By |2021-07-13T10:35:20+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Groundprobe Pty Ltd and another v Reutech Mining (Pty) Ltd and others [2021] HIPR 175 (SCA)

At the centre of the present appeal was the question of whether two claims in the patent in suit were invalid for lack of an inventive step. In particular, the question was whether it was inventive to mount a known radar system used to monitor slope system stability in open cast mines on a motorised automobile vehicle. It was common cause that the same radar system was previously mounted on a trailer that was hitched to a motorised automobile vehicle.

By |2021-07-13T10:29:30+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Golden Fried Chicken (Pty) Ltd v Vlachos and another [2020] HIPR 159 (GJ)

Trading under the name “Chicken Licken”, the applicant (“Golden”) operated some 200 outlets across the country. Part of the branding used in the business, were the words “Soul” and “Soul Food”, which Golden had registered as trade marks in terms of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. The first respondent had been selling souvlaki, a type of Greek street food, under the name “Soul Souvlaki” since November 2012. At the time of the hearing, he had two restaurants and also sold food at events and provided catering. The second respondent was registered in 2016 and was currently the proprietor of the restaurants.

By |2021-07-13T10:23:56+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Golden Fried Chicken (Pty) Ltd v Vlachos and another (Leave to Appeal) [2021] HIPR 160 (GJ)

An application by the applicant to prevent what it alleged was infringement of its trade mark by the respondent, was dismissed. The court also dismissed the respondent’s application to expunge the applicant’s trade marks. Both parties now sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their respective applications. Held that the court was not satisfied that there was a reasonable possibility that another court would arrive at a different conclusion. Leave to appeal was thus dismissed.

By |2021-07-13T10:15:56+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|

Geldenhuis v South African Batteries Importers Association [2018] HIPR 30 (CAC)

The third appellant ("SABMA") was an association of manufacturers in the lead acid battery manufacturing industry. The first two appellants were respectively the association's chairman and secretary. The first respondent ("SABIA") was an association aimed at examining legislative or policy proposals likely to affect battery importers in South Africa, and engaging with legislative or regulatory authorities to further the interest of the association and its members.

By |2021-07-13T10:53:31+02:0013 July 2021|Case Law & Judgements, South Africa|