San Miguel Brewing International Limited v Power Horse Energy Drinks GMBHG (Reasons) (2023/115430; 2023/114803) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1155 (4 November 2025)

Case Note

San Miguel Brewing International Limited v Power Horse Energy Drinks GMBH
[2023] ZAGPPHC 115430
Date: 28 October 2025

Reportability

This case is not reportable, primarily due to its interlocutory nature; however, it holds significance within the realm of trademark litigation. The decision showcases the complexities encountered in trademark opposition and expungement applications, particularly emphasizing the interplay of procedural rules and substantive rights.

Cases Cited

Farmer’s Table (Pty) Ltd v Kentucky Fried Chicken (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd case number 9763/88 dated 19 October 1988.

New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Chicks Scrap Metal (Pty) Ltd 2012 JDR 2195 (KZD).

Legislation Cited

Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993.

Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.

Rules of Court Cited

None explicitly cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This matter involved an application by Power Horse Energy Drinks GMBH seeking a stay of opposition proceedings related to trademark registrations initiated by San Miguel Brewing International Limited. The court dismissed the stay application, asserting that the requirements for such a stay were not satisfied by the applicant and distinguished this case from others cited in arguments presented by counsel.

Key Issues

The primary legal questions revolved around whether the stay of the trademark opposition and expungement proceedings should be granted. The court also addressed the implications of the lis pendens principle, potential prejudice faced by the parties, and the nature of the relationship between the opposition and expungement applications.

Held

The court ruled against the application for a stay, stating that the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that irreparable harm would result from continuing with the opposition proceedings. The court confirmed that the proceedings were capable of existing concurrently without conflicting judgments.

THE FACTS

The parties have been involved in trademark litigation since 2020. Power Horse successfully registered two trademarks in 2015 and subsequently opposed San Miguel's trademark applications, which led to the current opposition proceedings. As the hearing approached, San Miguel sought a stay pending the resolution of its expungement application against Power Horse's marks, arguing the substantive overlaps between the proceedings. Power Horse opposed this stay, labeling it a manipulation to postpone the inevitable hearing without just cause.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with deciding whether a stay on the trademark opposition was warranted pending the resolution of the expungement application. Key considerations included the risk of unjust prejudice to either party, the necessity of showing irreparable harm, and the validity of the lis pendens claim, given the differing forums for resolution.

ANALYSIS

In dismissing the stay application, the court emphasized the standard legal principles governing stay applications, which demand a clear showing of irreparable harm. The court found San Miguel's claims about potential harm to be inadequately substantiated, failing to detail specific instances that would result in unjust prejudice. Furthermore, the court highlighted that issues of trademark rights between the two companies could exist alongside without direct conflict in outcomes.

While the applicant sought to consolidate arguments related to both applications, the court clarified that the statutory frameworks governing each matter were distinct, with one addressing registration likelihood and the other concerning bona fide use. The court asserted the importance of procedural integrity, emphasizing that a stay would surreptitiously function as a postponement of an otherwise justiciable claim.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the application for a stay and ordered that the costs associated with this application be carried by the party who ultimately loses in the main proceedings (costs in the cause).

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case reinforces several key legal principles:

1. A stay application must meet stringent requirements demonstrating that real and substantial injustice would result without it.
2. The concept of lis pendens does not automatically preclude concurrency of proceedings in different judicial bodies if their determinations do not directly conflict.
3. The necessity for any stay application to provide concrete evidence of irreparable prejudice or harm is crucial for such an interim relief to be granted.

The court effectively illustrated the need for thorough justifications when seeking stays in trademark disputes, revealing the clear boundaries within which such matters must be navigated.