Rare trademark judgment in Zimbabwe

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Rare trademark judgment in Zimbabwe

Sponsored by

spoor-fisher-400px.png
jam-428094.jpg

IP judgments in Zimbabwe are unusual, says Chris Walters of Spoor & Fisher Jersey. So the recent Supreme Court decision in Cairns Foods v Netrade Marketing is welcome

Both companies in this case sell jam. Cairn Foods has a trademark registration in class 29 for a mark comprising the word Sun and a device of various fruits, whereas Netrade has a later registration in class 29 for the mark Royal Sun.

When Netrade used an unregistered logo featuring various fruits and the term Mixed Fruit Jam, Cairn Foods sued for trademark infringement and passing off. There was proof of actual confusion.

First instance decision

The first court held the marks were not confusingly similar. Inexplicably it said that Cairn Foods’ registration was simply a device (seemingly ignoring the word “Sun”). The plaintiff appealed.

Appeal court overrules

The appeal court looked to South African law for guidance and cited a number of cases that deal with issues such as the need to consider notional use, the notional consumer, and the general impression of marks.

Unsurprisingly the court overruled the earlier court’s decision that the plaintiff’s mark did not comprise the word “Sun”, describing it as “so grossly unreasonable in its defiance of logic as to attract interference on appeal”.

The approach should not be to conduct aforensic audit of the two marks... the law does not require the court to closely peer at the mark and the offending mark to find similarities and differences”.

The correct testis an assessment of the impact which the respondent’s mark would have on the average consumer … deception or confusion is a matter of first impression not an outcome of study”.

The result

There was both infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction.

There is nothing ground-breaking here, but it is a welcome addition to African IP jurisprudence!

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The five-partner team enhances Sheppard Mullin’s technology and life sciences capabilities, expanding its IP practice to more than 130 practitioners
In an exclusive interview, Rouse CEO Luke Minford, Arnold & Siedsma managing partner Steve Duxbury, and Wrays executive chairman Gary Cox discuss plans to build the world’s first ‘truly integrated’ global IP services business
Benjamin Grzimek, partner at Casalonga’s new Düsseldorf office, believes the firm is well-placed to challenge German UPC dominance
A lot of the reporting around the Anthropic settlement misses something critical: it isn’t that relevant to AI training, argues Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Justin Hill and Marie Jansson Heeks, part of an 18-strong team to have joined Crowell & Moring, explain why IP client advice must go beyond only being called upon for patent disclosure
To mark the EUIPO having processed five million EUTM and REUD applications, Managing IP speaks to the most prolific representatives to uncover how they stay at the top of their game
The merger marks Rouse’s second M&A deal within a month, and will provide access to Arnold & Siedsma’s UPC offering
Simon Tønners explains why IP provides the chance to work with some of the most passionate, risk-taking, and emotionally invested clients
The co-leaders of the firm’s new SEP practice group say the team will combine litigation and prosecution expertise to guide clients through cross-border challenges
Boasting four former Spruson & Ferguson leaders and with offices in Hong Kong and Singapore, the IP firm aims to provide fast, practical advice to clients
Gift this article