THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA

Reportable
Case No 242/2003

In the matter between:

LAUGH IT OFF PROMOTIONS CC

Appellant

and

SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES INTERNATIONAL
Respondent
(FINANCE) B V T/A SABMARK INTERNATIONAL

Coram:
HARMS, STREICHER, NAVSA, MTHIYANE

JJA AND COMRIE AJA
Heard:
30 AUGUST 2004
Delivered:  16 SEPTEMBER 2004
Subject:
Trademark infringement – Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 s 34(1)(c)
– dilution – effect on freedom of expression

J U D G M E N T

HARMS JA/

HARMS JA:

Introduction
[1] This appeal relates to trademark infringement and more particularly
infringement by way of dilution through tarnishment. Section 34(1)(c) of the Trade
Marks Act 194 of 1993 provides the statutory basis for such a claim by stating that
the rights acquired by registration of a trade mark are infringed by –

‘(c)
the unauthorized use in the course of trade in relation to any goods or
services of a mark which is identical or similar to a trade mark registered, if such trade mark
is well known in the Republic and the use of the said mark would be likely to take unfair
advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the registered
trade mark, notwithstanding the absence of confusion or deception: Provided that the
provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to a trade mark referred to in section 70 (2).’
The related question is whether or not, on the facts of this case, a finding of
infringement would impinge on the appellant’s entrenched freedom of expression,
which is contained in s 16(1) of the Constitution, and which includes –
‘(a)
freedom of the press and other media;
(b)
freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c)
freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d)
academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.’2
[2] The trademark owner (‘Sabmark’) – the respondent in this court – is a Dutch
company which forms part of the SAB group of companies. It holds the trade marks
of the group. A local member of the group is The South African Breweries Ltd. It
produces and sells beer and uses a series of Carling Black Label trade marks under

1 The proviso plays no role in the case.
2 The proviso of ss (2) does also not arise. It reads:
‘The right in subsection (1) does not extend to—

(a)
propaganda for war;

(b)
incitement of imminent violence; or

(c)
advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that
constitutes incitement to cause harm.’

licence from Sabmark. 3 It is common cause that the name mark ‘Carling Black
Label’4 has not been infringed and the case concerns two marks which consist of a
representation of Black Label stickers on the neck and body of a beer bottle.5 The
discussion will be limited to one of these because it is not in dispute that what
applies to the one applies to the other.
[3] The label (see the annexure to the judgment) on the neck contains the words
‘Carling’ and ‘enjoyed by men around the world’, all in black uppercase type on a red
background between two golden lines. The sticker for the body of the bottle is much
larger and is oblong. The background is red. There are also two gold lines, the upper
one containing the phrase ‘America’s lusty, lively beer’ and the lower one ‘Brewed in
South Africa’, all in black upper case. In a parallelogram with a black background the
words ‘Carling Black Label Beer’ appear – ‘Carling’ and ‘beer’ in red typeface and
‘Black Label’ in white script.
[4] The appellant is a close corporation and the alter ego of Mr JB Nurse. He
graduated in journalism and politics at Rhodes University and holds a postgraduate
diploma in enterprise management. He has a special interest in the effect of trade
marks and branding on society. The appellant, he says, is the result of the thought,
research and input of a collective of graduates and students from Rhodes. ‘They’ are
‘conscientious objectors to niche-market selfhood and mass-market mediocrity’ who
‘grew up to be brand atheists’. In order to bring this point home, the appellant
markets clothing – mainly, it would seem, T-shirts – using well-known logos and
trade marks ‘back on’ themselves. Nurse calls it ‘ideological jujitsu’ in which the
weight of a brand is used against itself.

3 In what follows no clear distinction is drawn between SAB and the companies in the group.
4 TM 1979/03675.
5 The marks are 1991/09236 and 1991/09237 registered in class 32 (schedule 3) in relation to beer,
ale and porter.

[5] In relation to the Black Label neck and body mark, the jujitsu grip consists of
what may be characterised as a caricature of the said trade mark used on T-shirts
shown as an annexure. It employs the general lay-out and colours of the registered
mark. However, the message is different. The words ‘Black Label’ were replaced
with ‘Black Labour’ and ‘Carling Beer’ with ‘White Guilt’. The laudatory part on the
label was replaced by ‘Africa’s lusty, lively exploitation since 1652’ and ‘No regard
given worldwide’.
The litigation
[6] In the court below the trademark owner applied for an interdict based on s
34(1)(c). Initially the appellant raised the constitutionality of the provision but later
abandoned it. (As will appear later, anti-dilution provisions are common in major
democracies that hold freedom of expression in high regard.) Cleaver J found
against the appellant. He apparently accepted the submission that the message
conveyed by the T-shirts was that SAB has in the past exploited and continues to
exploit black labour and is guilty of racial discrimination and that the words conjure
up this country’s racist past by falsely attributing to SAB the lusty and lively
exploitation of black labour since 1652, the year during which the Dutch settled in the
Cape. This message, he held, established that the appellant’s use of its caricature of
the Black Label trade mark would be likely to take unfair advantage of or be
detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade marks in question.
Freedom of expression, the learned judge held, did not justify the actions of the
appellant because the appellant deliberately exploited the marks for commercial gain
(it is an admitted fact that it will not be able to sell its T-shirts without using
caricatures of well-known marks) and its lampooning or parodying was not a
harmless clean pun which merely parodies or pokes fun but bordered on hate

speech. He accordingly held that the appellant’s conduct was covered by s 34(1)(c)
and issued an interdict. (I shall revert to its terms in due course.)
[7] Cleaver J granted the necessary leave to appeal to this court. We granted the
Freedom of Expression Institute (‘FXI’) leave to intervene as amicus curiae and it
was duly represented by counsel. As will become apparent, the issues before us on
appeal were limited. In particular, it should be noted, the constitutionality of s 34(1)(c)
was accepted by all.
The approach to trademark infringement
[8] Concern is expressed from time to time about the pervasiveness of trade
marks, the fact that trademark owners tend to be voracious and that trademark
protection is not always kept within its legitimate bounds. Nurse, in his affidavit,
raises this as a justification for attacking well-known marks. He says, for instance,
that ‘they’ (presumably he and his colleagues) are doing their bit to promote freedom
of expression in a world where commercial expression and debate is being crowded
out in the name of the protection of a brand. He also believes that brands tend to
control ideas and concepts. Some of this, but not all, is hyperbole.6
[9] Prof David Vaver, for one, has pointed out that intellectual property cannot be
treated as an absolute value. Its value should be weighed up against a range of
values of at least equal importance such as the ‘right of people to imitate others, to
work, compete, talk, and write freely, and to nurture common cultures.’7 This court,
too, on occasion emphasised that intellectual property rights should be confined

6 Cf First National Bank of  SA Ltd v Barclays Bank plc 2003 (4) SA 337 (SCA) para 10.
7 ‘Canada’s intellectual property framework: A comparative overview’ 17 Intellectual Property Journal
125 at 187-188. See the trenchant comments of Kozinski J in White v Samsung Electronics America
989 F2d 1512 (1993).

within their legitimate  boundaries.8 If so confined, the concerns expressed can be
accommodated considerably.
[10] On the other hand, and in spite of  some judicial resistance in certain
quarters,9 trade marks are property, albeit intangible or incorporeal. The fact that
property is intangible does not make it of a lower order.10 Our law has always
recognised incorporeals as a class of things in spite of theoretical objections
thereto.11 Also, simply because, as the appellant has it, trademark protection and
branding are the result and part of a ‘capitalistic’ economy does not mean that trade
marks may be disregarded by those who do not believe in such an economy.
[11] But then again, intellectual property rights have no special status. The
Constitution does not accord them special protection and they are not immune to
constitutional challenge. Even if constitutional, their enforcement must be
constitutionally justifiable.12 The problem, as will appear later, is that the question of
how far guarantees of freedom of the media and expression affect intellectual
property rights, is, except for the USA, somewhat virgin territory.13
Anti-dilution and trademark infringement
[12] In Beecham Group plc v Triomed (Pty) Ltd14 we pointed out that the function
of a trade mark, in terms of the definition in the Act, is to indicate the origin of the
goods or services.  In a footnote we quoted the European Court of Justice where it
held that the essential function of the trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the

8 Cadbury (Pty) Ltd v Beacon Sweets & Chocolates (Pty) Ltd 2000 (2) SA 771  (SCA) quoting
Wagamama Ltd v City Centre Restaurants Plc [1995] FSR 713 (Ch D) 728–729.
9 Eg the minority judgment in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co v Novak  836 F2d 397 405-406.
10 Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v. William Hill (Football) Ltd  [1964] 1 WLR. 273 (HL) 291.
11 Cf MV Snow Delta : Serva Ship Ltd v Discount Tonnage Ltd  2000 (4) SA 746 (SCA) para 9.
12 Cf in general Thomas B Nachbar ‘Intellectual property and constitutional norms’ [104] 2004
Columbia LR  272.
13 As to Canada: David Vaver Intellectual Property Law (1997) 19.  More generally Christine Steiner
‘Intellectual property and the right to culture’ in Intellectual Property and Human Rights (1998), the
proceedings of a panel discussion published by World Intellectual Property Organisation and the
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

origin of the marked product to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without
any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others which
have another origin. 15
[13] Beecham also pointed out that the protection granted to a trade mark by s
34(1) and its secondary commercial functions extend beyond the ‘badge of origin’
concept.  Section 34(1)(c) in particular is not concerned with either origin or
confusion. It protects the economic value of a trade mark, more partic ularly its
reputation and its advertising value or selling power.16 As summed up by Tony
Martino:17
‘A trademark is a “creative ‘silent salesman’” stimulating sales by creating goodwill and
assuring buyers that all goods bearing the same mark have the same quality. “The mark
actually sells the goods”; the more distinctive the mark, the greater its selling power.’
[14] The anti-dilution doctrine can be traced to German jurisprudence but was first
formulated with a measure of precision by  Frank I Scheckter.19 What Scheckter
principally had in mind was dilution by means of blurring of a trade mark when used
on non-competing goods. He gave the example of the blurring of Rolls-Royce if the
mark were to be used for restaurants, cafeterias, pants or candy. A modern German
example is the use of the trade mark Dimple for whiskey in relation to cosmetics.20

14 2003 (3) SA 639 (SCA).
15 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1999] RPC 117 (ECJ) par 28.
16 National Brands Ltd v Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd 2001 (3) SA 563 (SCA) para 11; Webster &
Page SA Law of Trade Marks (loose-leaf ed) para 12.24 and the authorities there quoted especially
BR Rutherford ‘Misappropriation of the advertising value of trade marks, trade names and service
marks’ in J Neethling (ed) Onregmatige Mededinging/Unlawful Competition (1990); P Ginsburg
‘Trade-mark dilution’ in Coenraad Visser The New Law of Trade Marks and Designs (1995). In the
German Mars case – see below – reference was made to a promotional advertising right (Case I ZR
79/92, 1995 [26] IIC 282). FW Mostert, in his doctoral thesis, spoke of the ‘reg op die reklamebeeld’:
Grondslae van die reg op die reklamebeeld (Rand Afrikaans University 1985).
17 Trademark Dilution  (1996) 25. Further at p 72 et seq.
18 References omitted.
19 ‘The Rational Basis of Trade Mark Protection’ [1927] 40 Harvard Law Review 813.’
20 GRUR 1985 (7) 550. The judgment is quoted and discussed in Premier Brands UK Ltd v Typhoon
Europe Ltd [2000] FSR 767 (Ch) 786.

[15] The instant case is, however, not concerned with blurring but rather with
tarnishment. FW Mostert21 quotes another German case to illustrate: the owner of
the well-known perfume ‘4711’ was able to interdict a sewer company from using the
number on a malodorous tank truck even though the number only formed part of its
telephone number. Courts in different jurisdictions have come to similar conclusions
on similar facts in this regard. For instance, the use of the American Express charge
card and the slogan ‘Don’t leave home without it’ in relation to condoms was not
acceptable to a US court.22 In Germany, the Federal Supreme Court found that the
use of the confectionary trade mark Mars and its slogan that it will liven you up in
relation to a gag item consisting of a condom, tarnished Mars.23 And in England an
attempt to register Visa as a trade mark, also in relation to condoms, was dismissed
on the same ground.24
[16] In the USA some states adopted anti-dilution statutes, the first being
Massachusetts in 1949.25 The problem is that these laws are not in identical terms.
As far a the federal position is concerned, Congress in 1995 amended s 43 of the
Trademark Act of 1946 (the Lanham Act) to provide a remedy for the dilution of
famous marks.26 That amendment, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA),
provides that –
‘the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon
such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's
commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has

21 Famous and Well-Known Marks (1 ed) 59-60; (2 ed) 1-103.
22 American Express Co v Vibra Approved Laboratories Corp 10 USPQ 2d 2006 (SDNY 1989).
23 Case I ZR 79/92, 1995 [26] IIC 282.
24 A Sheimer (M) SDN BHD’s Trade Mark Application [2000] RPC 13 (p 484).
25 Tony Martino ch 6. Canada has an anti-dilution provision in s 22 of its Trade Marks Act but it is said
to be poorly drawn and that it does its job equally poor: David Vaver ‘Need intellectual property be
everywhere? Against ubiquity and uniformity’ 2002 [25] Dalhousie LJ 1 at 20. The Australian Trade
Marks Act 1995 s 120 does not have a similar provision.

become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such
other relief as is provided in this subsection.’
FDTA describes the factors that determine whether a mark is ‘distinctive and
famous,’ and defines ‘dilution’ as ‘the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to
identify and distinguish goods or services.’ It sets out a number of specific defences
namely fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial
advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of
the famous mark; non-commercial use of a mark; and all forms of news reporting
and news commentary.
[17] A European Community directive27 provides in relation to trademark
infringement, inter alia, as follows in art 5:
‘2. Any Member State may also provide that the proprietor shall be entitled to prevent
all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is
identical with, or similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not
similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in
the Member State and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of,
or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.’
‘5. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not affect provisions in any Member State relating to the
protection against the use of a sign other than for the purposes of distinguishing goods or
services, where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is
detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.’

26 The detail can be found in Moseley dba Victor’s Little Secret v V Secret Catalogue Inc 123 S Ct
1115; 65 USPQ 2d 1801.
27 First Council Directive 89/1988 of the Council of the European Communities ‘To approximate the
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks’. To be found at  David Kitchin et al Kerly’s Law of
Trade Marks and Trade Names  (13 ed) 1017.

[18] This led to a White Paper on the ‘Reform of Trade Mark Law’, 1990 in the
United Kingdom. The subsequent UK Trade Marks Act 1994 (ch 26) deals with the
issue in s 10(3):
‘A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which –
(a) is identical with or similar to the trade mark, and
(b)  is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the
trade mark is registered,
where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being
without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or
the repute of the trade mark.’
(According to the ‘Memorandum on the Objects of the Draft Trade Marks Bill’ an
object of our current Act, was to harmonise our law with that of the European
Community, taking into account the said White Paper.)28
[19] Although reliance will be placed in the course of this judgment on foreign case
law it must be understood that it is done principally in order to illustrate or to
compare. The different statutory setting of all these cases must always be kept in
mind.  It is also not suggested that the outcome in those cases would necessarily
have been the same had the case been decided under our legislation and in our
social context.
Interpreting s 34(1)(c)
[20] This provision has arisen but parenthetically in our case law.29 At first blush its
meaning is clear. In order to establish infringement, the owner of the trade mark
must establish:
(a) the unauthorized use by the defendant of a mark

28 Notice 808 of 1991 GG 13482 of 30 August 1991.

(b) in the course of trade
(c) in relation to any goods or services
(d) the mark must be identical or similar to a registered trade mark,
(e) the trade mark must be well known in the Republic, and
(f) the use of the defendant’s mark would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or
be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the registered trade
mark.
As mentioned, the defendant’s use need not be in relation to similar goods or
services and the liability is not dependent on confusion or deception.
[21] Nothing as far as interpretation is concerned turns on integers (a) to (e), but
(f) on the other hand requires some elucidation. It must, obviously, be interpreted in
the light of the Constitution and its application must be such that it does not unduly
restrict a party’s freedom of expression.30 This requires a weighing-up of the freedom
of expression and the trademark owner’s rights of property and freedom of trade,
occupation or profession.
[22] In the ordinary course of events acts proscribed by the provision will not
impinge on a defendant’s freedom of expression but since there are instances where
it may, some limitation should be found or implied in the provision or in its application
insofar as it may be required by a balancing of divergent rights and interests. The
express terms of s 34(1)(c) do place important limitations on its scope. First, it
provides protection to well-known marks only. 31 Second, the prohibited use must be

29 Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA); Triomed (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group plc
2001 (2) SA 522 (T) 554H-557J; National Brands Ltd v Blue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd  2001 (3) SA
563 (SCA) para 11; Klimax Manufacturing Ltd v Van Rensburg [2004] 2 All SA 301 (O).
30 On the value of the freedom of expression: S v Mamabolo (E TV an d others intervening) 2001 (3)
SA 409 (CC) esp para 72; Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority 2002 (4)
SA 294 (CC) para 25 et seq.
31 As to the importance of this qualification: FW Mostert Famous and well-known marks (2 ed) 1-97.

‘in the course of trade’. This accords for instance with the position in the USA32 and
the EC. And then, significantly, the use must be in relation to goods or services.33
Integer (f) contains an important limitation namely that a defendant may not take
‘unfair advantage’ of the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark – according
to Mostert something akin to misappropriation or unjust enrichment.34 This allows for
a proper balancing of freedoms, rights and interests.
[23] The word ‘detrimental’ is not qualified in express terms. However, it is
inconceivable that any detriment could suffice and it is implicit that detriment, in order
to be actionable, has to be unfair in the sense that the relief sought may not unfairly
or unduly encroach on the rights of others – including the freedom of expression.
There is another qualification: The law, as a general proposition, concerns itself with
matters of substance only and, accordingly, insubstantial prejudice to the trademark
owner is not enough.35 Since neither freedom of expression nor trademark rights are
absolute, it will be necessary to consider how they should be balanced.36 Before
doing that it is necessary to consider whether the appellant has otherwise infringed
the trade marks in issue.
Infringement
[24] It is common cause that integers (a) to (e) have been established and all that
remains is whether the use by the appellant of its Black Labour White Guilt mark
would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive
character or the repute of the Black Label mark. That depends, amongst other

32 On commercial speech in the USA cf  Sanette Nel ‘Freedom of commercial speech: evaluating the
ban on advertising of legal products such as tobacco’ XXXVII CILSA 65 68 (2004).
33 Cf LL Bean Inc v Drake Publishers Inc 811 F2d 26 (1987): a parodic article in a magazine was held
not to infringe the senior mark.
34 FW Mostert Famous and well-known marks (2 ed) 1-115.
35 Cf Pfizer Ltd and Pfizer Inc v Eurofood Link (UK) Ltd  [2000] ETMR 896 (Ch) para 37. A mere
conjuring up of the trade mark is not enough: cf Cliffs Notes Inc v Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing
Group Inc 886 F 2d 491 496 (1989).

things, on its message, which is a matter of interpretation through the eyes not only
of the typical purchaser of such T-shirt but also through the eyes of those who are
perforce exposed to the purchaser’s attire.
[25] Sabmark submitted that the message conveyed is that since time immemorial
SAB has exploited and still is exploiting black labour and that it has or should have a
feeling of guilt and that SAB worldwide could not care less. That is more or less in
accordance with the finding of the court below. Counsel for both the appellant and for
FXI had some difficulty in explaining what the message was. Initially appellant’s
counsel asked us to ignore Nurse’s evidence that the intention was to satirise the
mark and to find that the T-shirt says nothing about SAB but says something in
general about whites having exploited black labour. In reply he retracted and
adopted FXI’s submission which was that it is a complex message which criticises
the methods used by SAB to market its beer by targeting black workers. It should be
emphasised that the appellant accepts that it has no ground for attacking the
employment practices of SAB. Nowhere on the papers is any case made out of the
exploitation of black labour. On the contrary, in a radio interview shortly after
proceedings were instituted, Nurse said that ‘it’s obviously not a statement about
SAB and their labour practices’.  What Nurse intended is not the issue, it is what he
in fact said or did. I have only referred to this evidence in order to indicate that the
appellant does not rely on a defence akin to truth and public interest or fair comment
in the law of defamation.37
[26] I find the interpretation contended for by counsel for the appellant and for FXI
strained to say the least and that the interpretation contended for by Sabmark to be

36 Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] RPC 5 (CA) 235 at 242-243, [2001] EWCA Civ 1142; Levi
Strauss & Co v Tesco Stores Ltd [2003] RPC 18 (Ch) at 336; Rogers v Grimaldi  875 F 2d 994 (1989)..

evidently the correct one. That leads to the next question namely whether a T-shirt
with such a message is substantially detrimental to the repute of the marks (I shall
return to deal with ‘unfairly’ in due course). Sabmark submits that the impression
created and left in the mind of the public that SAB has always been and still is guilty
of exploiting its black labour will, in the light of the history of the country, in all
likelihood be seriously damaging to its trade marks. Appellant’s counsel did not
attempt to meet the point head-on because it could not be met. It would be fair to
pose the question whether the message is not likely to create in the mind of
consumers a particularly unwholesome, unsavoury, or degrading association with
Sabmark’s marks.38 The answer must be yes. Otherwise put, will anyone who has
seen the appellant’s T-shirt  be able thereafter to disassociate it from Sabmark’s
trade marks?39 The answer must be no.
[27] The appellant attempted to find the answer to the question of detriment to
repute elsewhere. It contends that SAB has not established that there has been a
loss of sales as a result of the appellant’s T-shirt sales but on the other hand it
accepts that s 34(1)(c) does not require proof of actual loss but only the likelihood of
loss.40 It then contends that because the appellant is a small concern with relatively
limited sales there can be no detriment to the trade marks but counsel
simultaneously recognised that the size of an infringing operation is never relevant in
determining infringement. There was also a refrain about the need to establish
irreparable harm for a permanent interdict. Quite a novel proposition.

37 Cf Khumalo v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC) para 21 et seq. In his affidavit Nurse raised a large
number of serious social and political issues but these have nothing to do with the issues in this case.
Neither the appellant’s nor FXI’s counsel relied on any of those matters.
38 Cf Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company v Novak 648 F Supp 905; 231 USPQ 963 upheld on
appeal: Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company v Novak 836 F2d 397.
39 Cf Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Inc v Pussycat Cinema Ltd 604 F2d 200.

[28] I therefore find that the message on the T-shirt is materially detrimental to the
repute of the trade marks concerned. This leaves for consideration the freedom of
expression justification.
Freedom of expression41
[29] One should recognise that in latter-day societies one-liners, sound bytes and
SMS messages have become the favourite method of communication, replacing
political, religious and social monographs and tracts. T-shirts fall in the same class
and provide a powerful medium for making socio-political comments. As PJ
O’Rourke once remarked somewhat sardonically –
‘If Martin Luther were a modern ecologist, he would have to nail ninety-five T-shirts to the
church door at Wittenberg.’
[30] It is important to note what s 34(1)(c) does not forbid and the extent to which it
does not impinge on freedom of expression. The appellant is free to use its
caricature in the course of trade subject to a proviso: it may not use it in relation to
goods or services.  The appellant may use it in relation to goods or services by
placing the caricature on T-shirts, flags or whatever provided it is not so used in the
course of trade. That is more or less why Canadian courts have found that the
caricature of an employer’s trade marks by a trade union during a labour dispute
does not amount to trademark infringement.43 The appellant may declaim the
message about black labour and white guilt from rooftops, pulpits and political
platforms; and it may place the same words (without appropriating the registered

40 The position is different in the UK: DaimlerChrysler AG v Javid Alavi (t/a Merc) [2001] RPC 22 at p
842 and under US federal law: Moseley dba Victor’s Little Secret v V Secret Catalogue Inc 123 S Ct
1115; 65 USPQ 2d 1801.
41 FW Mostert Famous and well-known marks (2 ed) 1-122 for a discussion of the free speech
defence.
42 All the trouble in the world.
43  Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin"Michelin & Cie v National Automobile,
Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (T.D.) [1997] 2

mark’s repute) on T-shirts, and sell them. In other words, its freedom of  expression
is hardly affected. A Canadian court has held that freedom of expression is not at all
affected if the appellant is able to say what it wants to say in another manner.44 US
courts have also held that trade marks need not yield to First Amendment rights
under circumstances where adequate alternative avenues of communication exist.45
Whether these statements are correct in absolute terms one need not decide since it
suffices to say that the availability of adequate alternative avenues is a relevant
factor to consider in this context.
[31] Returning to the fact that trade marks are property: Some courts have held
that the freedom of expression does not entitle a party to damage private property.46
No-one would suggest that painting graffiti on private property (or even public
property) is not an abuse of free speech. Why should it be different simply because
the property is a trade mark? That is not to suggest that puns and the like are not
countenanced or that trademark owners’ over-sensitivity should be humoured.
However, courts are in general not amused by sex- and drug-related ‘parodies’, even
if they are clever or funny, simply because the prejudice to the trade mark tends to
outweigh freedom of expression.47 On the same principle, unfair or unjustified racial
slurs on a trademark owner (even if not hate speech or approximating it) should in
general not be countenanced, more so in a society such as ours. The whole point

F.C. 306; Rotisseries St- Hubert LTEE v Le Syndicat des Travailleurs (EUSES) de la Rotisseries St-
Hubert de Drummondville (CSN) 17 CPR (3d) 461.
44 Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin"Michelin & Cie v National Automobile,
Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (T.D.); Mutual of
Omaha Insurance Co v Novak 836 F2d 397 (1987).
45 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Inc v Pussycat Cinema Ltd 604 F2d 200 206.
46 Eg Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin"Michelin & Cie v National Automobile,
Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (T.D.); Mutual of
Omaha Insurance Co v Novak.
47 Tony Martino Trademark Dilution  60-62.

about reputation is that, like sanity, it operates as a working assumption – to
question it is, in itself, to devalue it. 48
[32] Another factor to be taken into account is the predatory intent of the
defendant.49 T-shirts are primarily a marketable commodity and not only a
communication medium. It is not the appellant’s case that  they were used in this
case otherwise than in the course of trade. It is also not the appellant’s case that the
mark was not used in relation to goods. On the contrary, the appellant is in the
business of marketing clothing. Using well-known marks for the marketing of its
goods is the whole basis of the appellant’s commercial existence.
[33] Purely derisory ‘parody’ of a mark should also not be entitled to protection.50
In this regard defamation principles may be of assistance and matters such as truth,
public interest and fair comment may play a role in determining whether the use of a
caricature is justified. That is a reason why the nature of the message conveyed by
the T-shirt is important.
Parody
[34] Appellant and FXI submitted that the message was a parody of Sabmark’s
trade marks and, as such, entitled to freedom of expression protection. In this regard
much reliance was placed on American jurisprudence, more often than not on
copyright cases. It is necessary to place all this in a proper perspective.
[35] The leading case on copyright parody in the USA is the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc.51 It concerned the question
whether a song which parodied Roy Orbison's song, ‘Oh, Pretty Woman,’ may be a

48 An adaptation of a statement about status by Fintan O’Toole A Traitor’s Kiss 71.
49 Tony Martino Trademark Dilution  61-62.
50 Gucci Shops Inc v RH Macy’s Co 446 F Supp 838 (1977); Anheuser-Busch Inc v Balducci
Publications 28 F3d 769 (1994).
51 510 US 569; 29 USPQ 2d 1961.

fair use within the meaning of the US Copyright Act.52 The ‘fair use’ of a copyright
work for purposes of criticism or comment is in terms of the statute not infringing use.
To determine whether parody falls within the meaning of ‘criticism’ the court defined
‘parody’ and it did so in these terms:
‘The germ of parody lies in the definition of the Greek parodeia, quoted in Judge
Nelson's Court of Appeals dissent, as "a song sung alongside another." 972 F.2d, at 1440,
quoting 7 Encyclopaedia Britannica 768 (15th ed. 1975). Modern dictionaries accordingly
describe a parody as a "literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an
author or a work for comic effect or ridicule," or as a "composition in prose or verse in which
the characteristic turns of thought and phrase in an author or class of authors are imitated in
such a way as to make them appear ridiculous."  For the purposes of copyright law, the nub
of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the
use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in
part, comments on that author's works. If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical
bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer
merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the
claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not
vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger. Parody needs to
mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's
(or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so
requires justification for the very act of borrowing.’53
[36] A finding that an allegedly infringing work is a parody does, however, not
conclusively establish that its use of the senior work was fair. In order to determine
whether ‘use’ constitutes fair use all relevant factors have to be taken into account,
including those specifically listed in the US statute. One such factor is the purpose

52 (1976) 17 U.S.C. 107.

and character of the use. For example, as Campbell makes clear, the use of a
copyright work to advertise a product, even in parody, is treated with less indulgence
than the sale of the parody itself. (In Canada, on the other hand, parody is not
regarded as fair use of a copyright work54 and there is no indication that the position
in the UK is any different.) Satire, on the other hand, differs from parody since it does
not comment on the senior work and can, therefore, not be considered to be a
comment or criticism of the copyright work.55 Even then, as a literary critic said  –
‘a satirical intention, however sincerely felt, does not supersede the requirements of ordinary
decency.’
Mr Nurse, who should know, ironically enough, described his use as satire and not
as parody. Mr Welz, the editor of Noseweek who filed an affidavit in support of
Nurse, was able to give a number of examples of true parody of trade marks as used
in his publication.57 And as counsel for FXI accepted during argument, some of the
appellant’s other caricatures can be classified as parody and others not.
[37] As in the case of copyright infringement, parody cannot per se be a defence
against trademark infringement in terms of s 34(1)(c). It is nevertheless a factor like
the other factors mentioned above that has to be considered in determining whether

53 References have generally been omitted.
54 Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin"Michelin & Cie v National Automobile,
Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (T.D.) [1997] 2
F.C. 306.
55 See in general: Dr Seuss E nterprises LP v Penguin Books USA Inc 109 F3d 1394 (1997); Rogers v
Koons 960 F 2d 301 (1992); Suntrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin Co 268 F 3d 1257. In a recent Dutch
case the court did not consider that parodying Russian society justified the copyright infringement of
Harry Potter books: Ilanah Simon ‘Parodies: A touch of magic’ [2004] European Intellectual Property
Review 185.
56 Clive James The Dreaming Swimmer 117.
57 The fact that a work is a parody may indicate that it is not a copy of the senior work, only that it
used the idea of the senior work: Joy Music Ltd v Sunday Pictorial Newspapers (1920) Ltd [1960] 1 All
ER 703 (QBD) 708 but that is another issue altogether. It is seems to be related to the transformative
test for determining fair use: Cf Pierre N Leval ‘Toward a fair use standard’ [103] Harvard LR  1105
and the response by Lloyd L Weinreb ‘Fair’s fair: a comment on the fair use doctrine’ [103] Harvard
LR 1137.

a defendant’s use of a mark contrary to the provisions of s 34(1)(c) is constitutionally
protected.58 A good example of fair parody is to be found in the judgment of the Paris
Tribunal de Grand Instance in Greenpeace France v Esso.59 Greenpeace used,
instead of the trade mark ESSO, the mark E$$O in a context in which it criticised
Esso’s ecological record. The court found that to be permissible because
Greenpeace should be able to, in its writings or on its internet site, denounce, as it
considers appropriate to the goal pursued, the environmental impacts and human
health risks caused by certain of Esso’s industrial activities. The court pointed out
that this freedom is not absolute and it can be subject to the restrictions necessary
for the protection of the rights of others. Although the mark E$$O refers to Esso’s
trademark, Greenpeace did not aim to promote its products or service commercially
but used E$$O for polemical purposes. This underscores the view that parody in
France is not a per se trade mark defence but that the exception of parody appears
to be allowed in relation to trade marks provided, inter alia, that the parody was not
made for commercial purposes and does not overstep the limits of parody.60
[38] Another illustration is the recent decision in Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain
Productions.61 The defendant produced artistic photographs which parodied the
lifestyle represented by Barbie dolls. The court dismissed the dilution claim on the
ground that tarnishment caused merely by an editorial or artistic parody which

58 Anheuser-Busch Inc v Balducci Publications 28 F3d 769 (1994). In the US parody is often used to
answer the question whether there is a likelihood of confusion: Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp v
Pacific Graphics 776 F Supp 1454 (1991).
59 26 February 2003 General index registration number: 2002/16307, 2002/17820.

60 Olivier Bancheraeu in an Intellectual Property newsletter at http://www.lovells.com.
61 US Court of Appeals for the 9
th Circuit. Reference not yet available.

satirizes plaintiff’s product or its image is not actionable under an anti-dilution statute
because of the free speech protection provided by the First Amendment.62
[39] On the other hand, in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co v Novak ,63 the
defendant, who was protesting nuclear proliferation, used the trade mark of an
insurance company to make his point on T-shirts and coffee mugs. This use was
found not to be parody because the defendant was not commenting on the plaintiff’s
trade mark or business. In Anheuser-Busch Inc v Balducci Publications 64 the
defendant placed a fake advertisement, which it thought humorous, in which the
plaintiff’s beer Michelob was represented as an oily product. The intended message
concerned an oil spill which had no connection with Michelob and water pollution in
general. No other justification was proffered for the damaging implication that
Michelob contained oil. In balancing the trademark owner’s rights against that
protected under the First Amendment, the court found that the First Amendment
defence had to yield to Michelob’s rights.
[40] German law appears to be similar. According to Nicola Dagg and Emma
Alanko65 –
‘German legal protection against dilution is subject to the condition that it is "without due
cause". In applying this provision, German courts attempt to strike a balance between the
interests of the trade mark owner and - most usually - the constitutionally protected right to
free expression. In striking this balance, German courts have considered:
1. Use of the slogan "Bild Dir keine Meinung" (do not form your own opinion), which
alluded to the advertising slogan "Bild Dir Deine Meinung" (form your own opinion) of
the well-known tabloid paper Bild (which is also the German word for "picture" and "to

62 Cf LL Bean Inc v Drake Publishers Inc 811 F2d 26 (1987) and, in another statutory context:
Lighthawk, Environmental Air Force v Robertson  812 F Supp 1095, 25 USPQ 2d 2014
63 836 F 2d 397 402.
64 28 F3d 769 (1994).

form"). This was held to be a critical expression with regard to the quality of the Bild
newspaper, which did not amount to  an infringement.
2. Use of the word Mordoro (Mord = murder) in a mock advertisement for Marlboro
cigarettes which was included in a non-smokers calendar. This was held not to
infringe the Marlboro trade mark because it was protected by the constitutional right
to freedom of expression.
On the other hand, the use of the expression Deutsche Pest was held to be an infringement
of the mark Deutsche Post because it did not contain a specific criticism of the German post
office, but merely amounted to a mindless denigration of the post office.’
[41] It follows from this analysis that the appellant’s reliance on parody as a
defence is misconceived. The appellant is using the reputation of Sabmark’s well-
known trade mark, which has been established at considerable expense over a
lengthy period of time, in the course of trade in relation to goods to the detriment of
the repute of the mark without any justification. Such use and detriment is unfair and
constitutes an infringement of the said provision. The appellant’s reliance on the
freedom of expression is misplaced. It did not exercise its freedom, it abused it.
Order
[42] The order issued by the court below was formulated in terms too wide. It does
not limit the interdict to use in the course of trade or on use in relation to goods or
services as required by s 34(1)(c). It included the trade mark ‘Carling Black Label’
within its scope although not infringed by the appellant. Restraining not only the
appellant but also its servants and agents was unnecessary and extending the order
beyond the infringing mark to ‘any other mark’ was wrong. However, these aspects

65 ‘Defining the limits of parody’ in Managing Intellectual Property July/August 2004.

were not issues in the appeal and do not affect costs of appeal. The appeal stands to
be dismissed subject to the indicated changes to the order.
[42] The following order issues:
(a)
Save as indicated in para (b), the appeal is dismissed with costs, including
the costs of two counsel.
(b)
The order of the court below is amended to read:
‘The respondent is interdicted from infringing registered trade marks 91/9236 and
91/9237 of the applicant by using in the course of trade and in relation to goods or
services the mark depicted in annexure A7. The respondent is to pay the costs of the
application, including the costs of two counsel.’

_______________________
L T C  HARMS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

AGREE:

Streicher JA
Navsa JA
Mthiyane JA
Comrie AJA