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

IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Magdalena Bonde discusses Abion’s AI experiments and reveals why an entrepreneurial mindset and a willingness to learn about a business are essential skills
Partner Ginevra Righini explains how she secured victory for the Comité Champagne in its fight against an EUTM application for ‘Nero Champagne’
Volkan Hamamcıoğlu joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss meditation, tackling deadlines, and taking inspiration from Hamlet
A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
In our latest interview with women IP leaders, Catherine Bonner at Murgitroyd discusses technology, training, and teaching
Gift this article