Under the previous South African advertising regulatory regime,
the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), it became increasingly
common for brand owners to take trade mark-style disputes to the
ASA rather than to the courts, given that the ASA was both cheaper
and quicker. The ASA has been replaced by the new Advertising
Regulatory Board (ARB), with a similar code of conduct. A recent
ARB ruling suggests that trade mark-style disputes can still go the
advertising law route, provided that they aren’t too
legalistic.
The case of Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive
(Pty) Ltd v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd (30 August 2019), dealt with
competing fabric softeners. Colgate Palmolive, makers of the
market-leading Sta-Soft product, complained about a competitor,
Bliss Brands, that sells a product under the name Maq. Although the
products have co-existed for many years, it was the decision of
Bliss to change the sub-brand or descriptor that appeared under the
name Maq
