Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 14 of
14
with 100 items per page.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints abstract "Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks. This appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division was heard in the Appellate Division by Corbett JA, Miller JA, Nicholas JA, Galgut AJA and Howard AJA on February 27, 1984, with judgment handed down on May 21, 1984. The appellant's attorneys were Spoor & Fisher, Pretoria, and Israel & A Sackstein, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Scher Webner & Co, Cape Town, and Lovius, Block, Meltz, Steyn & Yazbek, Bloemfontein.The court found that a qualification was necessary to the general rule regarding final interdicts in motion proceedings. Sometimes the denial by the respondent of a fact alleged by the applicant may not be such as to raise a real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fact. If the respondent in such a case has failed to apply for the deponents concerned to be called for cross-examination, and if the court is satisfied as to the inherent credibility of the applicant's averments, the court may decide the disputed fact in the applicant's favour, without hearing oral evidence. This has come to be known as the "Plascon-Evans rule." When factual disputes arise, therefore, relief should be granted only if the facts stated by the respondent, together with the admitted facts in the applicant's affidavits, justify the order. The court noted there may be exceptions to this general rule, as where the allegations or denials are so far-fetched that the court is justified in rejecting them on the papers.It seemed to the court that the definition of "trade mark" in section 2 of the Trade Marks Act was not appropriate to infringement proceedings. It seemed also that the notional-user test, deployed by the courts to determine whether or not there has been an infringement of a trade mark, posed difficulties where the actual proven user fell outside of the ambit of the plaintiff's monopoly.The court found that the intention of the legislature in section 46(b) of the Act was to safeguard the use by the trader of words which were fairly descriptive of his goods and genuinely used for the purpose of describing the character and quality of those goods. Such use must not be a device for the achievement of some ulterior object.".
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints wikiPageID "39343853".
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints wikiPageRevisionID "587833621".
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints subject Category:2006_in_South_Africa.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints subject Category:2006_in_case_law.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints subject Category:South_African_property_case_law.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints subject Category:Supreme_Court_of_Appeal_of_South_Africa_cases.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints comment "Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks. This appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division was heard in the Appellate Division by Corbett JA, Miller JA, Nicholas JA, Galgut AJA and Howard AJA on February 27, 1984, with judgment handed down on May 21, 1984. The appellant's attorneys were Spoor & Fisher, Pretoria, and Israel & A Sackstein, Bloemfontein.".
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints label "Plascon-Evans v Van Riebeeck Paints".
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints sameAs m.0v3dcqj.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints sameAs Q16967194.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints sameAs Q16967194.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints wasDerivedFrom Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints?oldid=587833621.
- Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints isPrimaryTopicOf Plascon-Evans_v_Van_Riebeeck_Paints.