Authored By: Danae-Sha Govender
Emeris
Abstract
The increase of counterfeit luxury goods poses significant challenges to trademark enforcement in South Africa. This article examines whether South Africa’s legal framework, principally the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997[1] and the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993[2] provides effective protection against the trade in counterfeit luxury products. Using a doctrinal legal research methodology, the article analyses statutory provisions, enforcement mechanisms, and judicial interpretation, with reference to relevant case law. It further evaluates South Africa’s compliance with international standards under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.[3] The article finds that while South Africa has a relatively robust legislative framework, procedural technicalities, resource constraints, and limited deterrent penalties undermine its practical effectiveness.[4] It concludes that stronger inter-agency coordination, enhanced penalties, and improved digital enforcement mechanisms are necessary to address the evolving counterfeit luxury goods market.[5]
Introduction
The global trade in counterfeit luxury goods has expanded rapidly, fuelled by consumer demand for status products at reduced prices and facilitated by online marketplaces and porous borders.[6] In South Africa, counterfeit luxury items, including designer clothing, handbags, footwear, watches and accessories are widely available in informal markets and increasingly through digital platforms. This phenomenon undermines brand value, erodes consumer trust and threatens economic development.[7]
Trademark law forms the cornerstone of protection for luxury brands.[8] A trademark signifies origin, quality and reputation. When counterfeiters unlawfully reproduce registered marks, they not only infringe proprietary rights but also exploit the goodwill painstakingly built by legitimate brand owners.[9] In response, South Africa enacted the Counterfeit Goods Act[10] to strengthen enforcement mechanisms beyond traditional civil remedies under the Trade Marks Act.[11]
This article addresses the central research question: To what extent is South Africa’s trademark enforcement regime effective in combating counterfeit luxury goods? It evaluates whether the current legislative and enforcement framework adequately deters counterfeiting and protects trademark owners in practice.
The article proceeds as follows. First, it outlines the conceptual and statutory framework governing counterfeiting and trademark protection. Second, it provides a detailed legal analysis of enforcement mechanisms under the Counterfeit Goods Act[12] and Trade Marks Act[13], including search and seizure procedures, civil and criminal remedies, and border measures. Third, it discusses key judicial decisions shaping counterfeit enforcement. Finally, it offers a critical assessment of legislative and practical shortcomings and proposes recommendations for reform.
Background and Conceptual Framework
Counterfeit goods are unlawful imitations that infringe intellectual property rights, most commonly trademarks and copyright. In practical terms, counterfeit goods are products that unlawfully bear a registered trademark identical or substantially indistinguishable from the genuine mark, thereby misleading consumers as to origin.[14]
In South Africa, trademark protection is primarily governed by the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993.[15] Section 34[16] provides that infringement occurs where an unauthorised party uses an identical or confusingly similar mark in the course of trade in relation to identical or similar goods. Luxury brands rely heavily on these provisions to prevent unauthorised use of their marks.
However, civil trademark litigation alone proved inadequate to combat large-scale counterfeiting. Prior to 1997, reliance was placed on the Merchandise Marks Act 17 of 194[17]1 and common-law remedies. These measures lacked streamlined enforcement mechanisms and effective penalties.[18]
The Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997[19] was enacted to address these shortcomings. It provides specialised procedures enabling inspectors such as police officials and customs officers to conduct search and seizure operations.[20] It criminalises dealing in counterfeit goods, including manufacturing, importing, distributing and selling such goods in the course of trade.[21]
Internationally, South Africa’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement[22] require the provision of effective enforcement mechanisms, including civil remedies, criminal penalties and border measures. The Counterfeit Goods Act[23] was introduced partly to ensure compliance with these standards.
The conceptual framework underlying anti-counterfeiting law rests on three pillars: protection of proprietary rights, consumer protection and economic regulation. Effective enforcement must balance due process safeguards with the need for swift intervention against illicit trade networks.[24]
Legal Analysis
The effectiveness of trademark enforcement against counterfeit luxury goods in South Africa depends on the interaction between civil remedies under the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993[25] and criminal enforcement mechanisms established by the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997.[26] Together, these statutes form the core of South Africa’s anti-counterfeiting legal framework.
Civil Remedies under the Trade Marks Act: Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act[27] provides trademark owners with civil remedies when their marks are infringed. These remedies include the ability to seek an interdict preventing further infringement, claim damages, or request a reasonable royalty for the unauthorised use of the trademark.[28] In the context of luxury goods, infringement typically occurs where counterfeit products bear identical or confusingly similar marks applied without authorisation. In such cases, trademark owners may institute civil proceedings to prevent further use of the mark and to obtain compensation. However, civil enforcement can present practical challenges.[29] Litigation is often costly and time-consuming, and counterfeit traders frequently operate in informal markets where defendants may lack traceable assets or financial resources.[30] As a result, even where a court grants damages, recovery may be difficult. Consequently, civil proceedings alone may not provide a sufficient deterrent against large-scale or organised counterfeiting operations.[31]
Criminalisation and Enforcement under the Counterfeit Goods Act: The Counterfeit Goods Act[32] was enacted specifically to strengthen South Africa’s ability to combat the trade in counterfeit goods. Prior to its introduction, enforcement relied primarily on the Trade Marks Act[33], the Copyright Act[34] and provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act[35]. These statutes were considered inadequate because they created offences only in limited circumstances and lacked effective enforcement mechanisms.[36] The Counterfeit Goods Act[37] therefore introduced a more comprehensive system for combating counterfeiting. It criminalises various forms of conduct relating to counterfeit goods, including manufacturing, importing, distributing, possessing, or selling such goods in the course of trade. Section 2(2) of the Act provides that a person commits an offence if they engage in prohibited conduct relating to counterfeit goods while knowing, or having reason to suspect, that the goods are counterfeit.[38] Liability may also arise where a person fails to take reasonable steps to prevent such conduct.[39] This provision expands the scope of liability and allows authorities to prosecute individuals who negligently participate in counterfeit trade.[40]
Search and Seizure Mechanisms: One of the most significant enforcement tools introduced by the Counterfeit Goods Act[41] is the power of search and seizure. The Act provides for the appointment of inspectors, including certain police officials and customs officers, who are authorised to investigate suspected counterfeit activities.[42] Where a complainant lodges a complaint supported by an affidavit demonstrating reasonable suspicion of counterfeit activity, an inspector may apply for a warrant from a judge or magistrate.[43] Once a warrant is issued, the inspector may enter premises or vehicles, search for suspected counterfeit goods, and seize or detain such goods.[44] Following a seizure, the inspector must provide written notice to both the suspect and the complainant indicating the details of the seizure and the location where the goods are stored.[45] The seized goods are then sealed, inventoried and kept at a designated counterfeit goods depot until a court determines their disposal. Although these procedures enable rapid intervention against counterfeit operations, the Act imposes strict procedural requirements and deadlines.[46] For example, the complainant must decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings within three days after receiving the seizure notice. Failure to comply with these time limits may result in the release of the seized goods. These procedural requirements ensure due process but may complicate enforcement where coordination between rights holders and authorities is limited.[47]
Border Measures: Section 15 of the Counterfeit Goods Act[48] empowers customs authorities to detain goods suspected of being counterfeit when they are imported into or exported from South Africa. Rights holders may apply to the Commissioner of Customs to have their intellectual property rights recorded for monitoring purposes.[49] Once such an application is accepted, customs officials at ports of entry are alerted to the relevant trademarks and may detain suspected counterfeit consignments.[50] Samples are made available to the rights holder for inspection, and the rights holder must submit an affidavit confirming that the goods are counterfeit within five working days.[51] If the affidavit is not provided within the prescribed period, the goods may be released. These border enforcement measures are particularly important in the luxury goods sector, where counterfeit products are frequently imported from foreign markets. However, effective implementation often requires cooperation between customs authorities and rights holders, including the provision of brand identification training.[52]
Online Counterfeiting and ISP Liability: The growth of e-commerce and social media platforms has introduced new challenges in combating counterfeit goods. Counterfeit products are increasingly marketed online through websites or social media accounts that direct consumers to external sales platforms.[53] While the Counterfeit Goods Act[54] remains the primary legislation addressing counterfeit goods, online enforcement may also involve the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002[55] (ECTA). Under ECTA, internet service providers are generally not liable for merely transmitting or providing access to online content.[56] However, they are required to remove infringing content upon receipt of a valid takedown notice or a court order.[57] This mechanism allows rights holders to request the removal of online listings offering counterfeit goods. Nevertheless, enforcement in the digital environment can be challenging, as sellers may quickly create new accounts or websites after their listings are removed.[58]
Penalties for Counterfeiting: The Counterfeit Goods Act[59] imposes criminal penalties for individuals convicted of dealing in counterfeit goods. A first conviction may result in a fine of up to R5,000 per infringing article, imprisonment for up to three years, or both. For subsequent convictions, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of R10,000 per article or imprisonment for up to five years.[60] Despite these penalties, the profitability of counterfeit luxury goods may still encourage illicit trade. Consequently, enforcement often requires coordinated efforts involving criminal prosecution, civil litigation, and administrative measures.
Overall Effectiveness of the Framework: South Africa possesses a relatively comprehensive statutory framework for addressing counterfeit goods. The Trade Marks Act[61] provides civil remedies for trademark infringement, while the Counterfeit Goods Act[62] introduces criminal sanctions and specialised enforcement mechanisms such as search-and-seizure procedures and customs detention. However, effective enforcement depends heavily on cooperation between rights holders, investigators, customs authorities and law-enforcement agencies. Rights holders often play a central role by initiating complaints, providing evidence of counterfeit activity, and assisting authorities with brand identification and investigations.[63]
Case Law Discussion
- Laugh It Off Promotions CC v. South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International and Another (CCT42/04) [2005] ZACC 7: Although not a counterfeiting case strictly speaking, this Constitutional Court decision clarified the balance between trademark protection and constitutional rights. The dispute concerned parody use of the “Black Label” trademark.[64] The Court held that trademark rights must be interpreted consistently with freedom of expression. The legal principle established is that trademark protection is not absolute and must be balanced against constitutional considerations.[65] Its relevance lies in affirming that enforcement against counterfeit luxury goods must remain proportionate and constitutionally compliant.
- Adidas AG & another v. Pepkor Retail Limited (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3: This case involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off relating to the well-known Adidas three-stripe trademark used on footwear.[66] Adidas alleged that Pepkor Retail Limited sold shoes with two- and four-stripe designs that were confusingly similar to its registered three-stripe trademarks, thereby infringing its rights under the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993.[67] Pepkor argued that the stripes on its footwear were merely decorative and not used as trademarks, and that consumers would not confuse the products because Adidas specifically registered a three-stripe design, whereas Pepkor used a different number of stripes.[68] The Supreme Court of Appeal rejected Pepkor’s arguments and held that stripes on footwear can function as trademarks rather than simple decoration. The Court found that Pepkor’s use of four stripes created a similar overall impression to the Adidas mark and could lead consumers to believe that the products were associated with Adidas.[69] The Court therefore ruled in favour of Adidas, granting an interdict to stop Pepkor from using the stripe designs and ordering the removal of the infringing goods. This decision highlights the broad protection afforded to well-known trademarks and illustrates that even small variations in design may constitute infringement where the overall impression of the mark remains similar.[70] The case demonstrates how South African courts protect distinctive branding in the fashion and sportswear industries, particularly where traders attempt to imitate well-known design elements associated with established brands.[71]
- Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG [2007] SCA 96 (RSA): This Supreme Court of Appeal case considered whether the use of BMW’s registered trademarks in advertising replacement windscreens constituted trademark infringement.[72] Commercial Auto Glass used BMW model designations when marketing windscreens compatible with BMW vehicles. The Court held that the decisive issue is how consumers interpret the use of the mark.[73] If the use creates the impression of a commercial link with the trademark owner, infringement may occur. The Court found that the manner in which the marks were used could lead consumers to believe that the windscreens were genuine BMW products.[74] As the use was not honest or consistent with fair commercial practice, the statutory defence allowing the use of trademarks to indicate the purpose of goods did not apply. The case confirms that traders selling compatible or aftermarket goods must clearly distinguish their products from those of the trademark owner.[75] This decision is significant for trademark enforcement in the automotive and luxury goods sectors. It illustrates that even where goods are merely compatible with branded products, the use of a trademark in advertising or product descriptions may still constitute infringement if it creates the impression of association with the trademark owner.[76] The case therefore reinforces the principle that traders dealing in non-authorised or aftermarket goods must clearly distinguish their products from those of the brand owner to avoid misleading consumers.[77]
- Yossi Barel v. Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (SCA): This Supreme Court of Appeal decision addressed the meaning of “counterfeit goods” under the Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997.[78] Yossi Barel had registered the ENRICO COVERI trademark in South Africa after the original registration lapsed, while Popular Trading imported footwear bearing the same brand from authorised Italian manufacturers.[79] The majority of the Court held that counterfeiting requires proof that the alleged infringer intended the goods to be confused with those of the trademark owner. Because Popular Trading imported genuine products and believed them to be authentic, there was no intention to deceive consumers.[80] The Court therefore held that the goods were not counterfeit and dismissed the appeal.[81] The case therefore highlights an important limitation within South Africa’s anti-counterfeiting framework: rights holders must demonstrate a level of intentional deception before the criminal and seizure mechanisms of the Act can be invoked.[82] This distinction is particularly relevant in disputes involving parallel imports or genuine goods bearing internationally recognised luxury trademarks.
Critical Analysis and Findings
South Africa’s legal framework for combating counterfeit luxury goods is relatively comprehensive and broadly aligned with international intellectual property standards, particularly those established under the TRIPS Agreement.[83] The interaction between the Trade Marks Act[84] and the Counterfeit Goods Act[85] provides both civil and criminal mechanisms for protecting trademark owners. The Trade Marks Act[86] enables rights holders to institute civil proceedings and seek remedies such as interdicts, damages or reasonable royalties where infringement occurs. The Counterfeit Goods Act strengthens enforcement by introducing criminal sanctions[87] as well as specialised mechanisms including search-and-seizure procedures[88] and border control measures aimed at preventing the circulation of counterfeit goods. South African courts have generally demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting trademark rights. In Adidas AG v. Pepkor Retail Limited[89], the Supreme Court of Appeal held that even small variations in design may constitute infringement where the overall impression created by a mark is confusingly similar to a registered trademark. The decision illustrates the courts’ willingness to protect distinctive branding, particularly in the fashion and luxury goods sector where visual identity plays a significant role.[90] Similarly, in Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG[91], the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that the use of another’s trademark in advertising may amount to infringement where it creates the impression of a commercial association with the trademark owner.[92] This case emphasises the importance of clearly distinguishing compatible or aftermarket goods from genuine branded products to avoid misleading consumers.[93] Despite these strengths, several limitations affect the practical effectiveness of the legal framework. The Counterfeit Goods Act[94] contains strict procedural requirements, including short deadlines following the seizure of suspected counterfeit goods, which may complicate enforcement where coordination between rights holders and authorities is limited. Furthermore, in Yossi Barel v. Popular Trading CC and Others[95], the Court clarified that counterfeiting requires proof of intentional deception, meaning that goods believed to be genuine may fall outside the Act’s criminal provisions.
Conclusion
This article examined the extent to which South Africa’s trademark enforcement regime effectively combats the trade in counterfeit luxury goods. The analysis shows that the combined operation of the Trade Marks Act[96] and the Counterfeit Goods Act[97] provides a comprehensive legal framework that includes civil remedies, criminal sanctions, search-and-seizure procedures and border enforcement mechanisms. Judicial decisions such as Adidas AG v. Pepkor Retail Limited[98] and Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG[99] demonstrate the courts’ willingness to protect well-known trademarks and prevent traders from exploiting established brand reputations. At the same time, cases such as Yossi Barel v. Popular Trading CC and Others[100] clarify important limitations within the application of the Counterfeit Goods Act[101]. In answering the research question, South Africa’s trademark enforcement regime is legally robust but practically constrained. Procedural complexities, relatively modest penalties and the rise of online counterfeiting limit its deterrent effect. Strengthening enforcement coordination and adapting legal mechanisms to digital markets would significantly improve the framework’s effectiveness.
Bibliography:
Cases
Adidas AG & another v. Pepkor Retail Limited (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3
Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG [2007] SCA 96 (RSA)
Laugh It Off Promotions CC v. South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International and Another (CCT42/04) [2005] ZACC 7
Yossi Barel v. Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (SCA)
Statutes and Treaties
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 15, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299
Copyright Act 98 of 1978 (South Africa)
Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (South Africa)
Merchandise Marks Act 17 of 1941 (South Africa)
Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa)
Books and Articles
Godfrey Thenga, An Evaluative Study of Criminalistics: A Case of South African Counterfeiting and Knock-off Menace, 45, 2-3 (2021)
Web Resources
Admin, When Online Marketplaces Face Counterfeit Allegations: A South African Case Study, Brandlaw, https://www.brandlaw.co.za/blog/south-africa-online-marketplaces-counterfeit-trademark-case-study/ (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
Boa Tran, Why Trademarks Are Essential For Luxury Branding Strategies, Patentpc, https://patentpc.com/blog/why-trademarks-are-essential-for-luxury-branding-strategies (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
Mohamed Khader, South Africa’s Fight Against Fake Goods, African Law & Business, https://www.africanlawbusiness.com/expert-views/19674-south-africa-s-fight-against-fake-goods/ (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[1] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), s 2(1)
[2] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa), s 34(1)(c)
[3] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 15, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299
[4] Mohamed Khader, South Africa’s Fight Against Fake Goods, African Law & Business, https://www.africanlawbusiness.com/expert-views/19674-south-africa-s-fight-against-fake-goods/ (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[5] Id.
[6] Admin, When Online Marketplaces Face Counterfeit Allegations: A South African Case Study, Brandlaw, https://www.brandlaw.co.za/blog/south-africa-online-marketplaces-counterfeit-trademark-case-study/ (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[7] Id.
[8] Boa Tran, Why Trademarks Are Essential For Luxury Branding Strategies, Patentpc, https://patentpc.com/blog/why-trademarks-are-essential-for-luxury-branding-strategies (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[9] Id.
[10] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[11] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa)
[12] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[13] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[14] Godfrey Thenga, An Evaluative Study of Criminalistics: A Case of South African Counterfeiting and Knock-off Menace, 45, 2-3 (2021)
[15] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa)
[16] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa), s 34
[17] Merchandise Marks Act 17 of 1941 (South Africa)
[18] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[19] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 15, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299
[23] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[24] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[25] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa), s 34
[26] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), s 2 (2)
[27] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa), s 34
[28] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[33] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa)
[34] Copyright Act 98 of 1978 (South Africa)
[35] Merchandise Marks Act 17 of 1941 (South Africa)
[36] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[37] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 2
[38] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 2 (2)
[39] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[40] Id.
[41] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 4
[42] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[43] Id.
[44] Id.
[45] Id.
[46] Id.
[47] Id.
[48] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 15
[49] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[50] Id.
[51] Id.
[52] Id.
[53] Id.
[54] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 2
[55] Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (South Africa)
[56] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[57] Id.
[58] Id.
[59] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 19
[60] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[61] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa), S 34
[62] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 2
[63] Mohamed Khader and Jarred West, South Africa: Targeted Law is Already Scoring Big Wins Against Domestic Fakes, WTR, https://spoor.com/storage/2025/07/WTR-South-Africa-Targeted-law-is-already-scoring-big-wins-against-domestic-fakes.pdf (Last visited Mar. 5, 2026)
[64] Laugh It Off Promotions CC v. South African Breweries International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International and Another (CCT42/04) [2005] ZACC 7
[65] Id.
[66] Adidas AG & another v. Pepkor Retail Limited (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3
[67] Id.
[68] Id.
[69] Id.
[70] Id.
[71] Id.
[72] Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG [2007] SCA 96 (RSA)
[73] Id.
[74] Id.
[75] Id.
[76] Id.
[77] Id.
[78] Yossi Barel v. Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (SCA)
[79] Id.
[80] Id.
[81] Id.
[82] Id.
[83] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 15, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299
[84] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa)
[85] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[86] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa)
[87] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 2
[88] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa), S 4
[89] Adidas AG & another v. Pepkor Retail Limited (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3
[90] Id.
[91] Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG [2007] SCA 96 (RSA)
[92] Id.
[93] Id.
[94] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[95] Yossi Barel v. Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (SCA)
[96] Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (South Africa)
[97] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
[98] Adidas AG & another v. Pepkor Retail Limited (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3
[99] Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG [2007] SCA 96 (RSA)
[100] Yossi Barel v. Popular Trading CC and Others (1102/2023) [2025] ZASCA 94 (SCA)
[101] Counterfeit Goods Act 37 of 1997 (South Africa)
