---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 119/2016

Not Reportable

Not of interest to other Judges

10/4/2018

In the matter between:

TRITOF ENTERPRISES (SA) PROPERTARY LIMITED                                 First Applicant

And

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS                                                              First Respondent

OMEGA PHARMA INNOVATION &

DEVELOPMENT NV                                                                              Second Respondent

OMEGALABS (PTY) LTD                                                                         Third Respondent

MCNEIL HEALTHCARE (UK) LTD                                                         Fourth Respondent

OMEGA PHARMA NV                                                                                Fifth Respondent

 

JUDGMENT - Leave to appeal

 

MAKGOK AJ

[1] The applicant, the unsuccessful applicant in the main application, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this court made on 12 October 2017 refusing its rectification and expungment application of the second respondent's trade mark.

[2] The common law test in an application for leave to appeal has always been whether there are reasonable prospects that another court, given the same set of facts, might arrive to a different conclusion. That test has been codified in s 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Court Act 10 of 2013, in terms of which leave to appeal may only be given where a judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospect of success, or that there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

[3] I have had a careful and dispassionate regard to the application for leave to appeal. All the grounds set out in the application for leave to appeal have been exhaustively in the judgment sought to be appealed against. There is nothing new in this application. I therefore conclude that there is no reasonable prospect of success in the appeal. There is similarly no compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

[4] In the result the application is dismissed with costs.

 

 

_____________________

T M Makgoka

Judge of the High Court

 

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: P Cirone

Instructed by: Rademeyer Attorneys., Johannesburg

Klagsbrun Edelstein Bosman De Vries.,

Pretoria

For the Second, Third

And Fifth Respondents: BJ Vaughan

Instructed by: Werksmans Attorneys, Johannesburg

Brazington, Shepperson & McConnell, Pretoria

---