Browsing: Bliss Brands

Bliss Brands is required to remove both its original and latest Securex packaging from all platforms where they are found. The company has 15 working days from the date of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s order to comply. The court found that Bliss Brands had deliberately and in bad faith breached an earlier order by making only minor changes to the packaging and continuing to advertise the original design. Bliss Brands has been ordered to withdraw its original and latest Securex soap packaging from all platforms after the Supreme Court of Appeal found it had not complied with an earlier court order. The SCA directed the company to comply immediately, and no later than 15 working days from the date of its order. This extends the withdrawal requirement to all platforms, not just those covered by the earlier High Court order. This order marks a major development in the six-year dispute between Bliss Brands and Colgate-Palmolive over their competing soap brands’ packaging. The SCA dismissed both of Bliss Brands’ appeals with costs and upheld Colgate’s cross-appeal, also with costs, including the fees for two counsel. Acting Judge EJS Steyn delivered the judgment, with Judge President MB Molemela, Judge GG Goosen, Judge E Baartman, and Acting Judge MF Kganyago agreeing. The matter was heard on 30 March 2026, and the judgment was delivered electronically on 12 August 2026. The dispute began with Securex and Protex The dispute began in 2019 when Colgate complained to the Advertising Regulatory Board, arguing that Bliss Brands’ Securex packaging copied the look and feel of its Protex soap and unfairly took advantage of the Protex brand’s reputation. Colgate leads the germ-protection soap market with a 32 percent share, while Bliss Brands entered the market with Securex in 2011. The Advertising Regulatory Board initially dismissed Colgate’s complaint in January 2020, but Colgate appealed to the Advertising Appeals Committee. In April 2020, the committee found that Bliss Brands’ packaging broke clauses 8 and 9 of the Code of Advertising Practice. The Final Appeal Committee later confirmed this ruling and ordered Bliss Brands to withdraw the original packaging from every platform where it appeared. Bliss Brands was told that the Advertising Regulatory Board had limited authority over non-members and that it did not have to respond to the original complaint. Nonetheless, Bliss Brands chose to take part in the process and accepted the Board’s authority. This later became important when Colgate challenged the limits placed on enforcing the order. The High Court ordered Bliss Brands to comply The dispute then went through several courts, including the High Court in Johannesburg, the SCA and the Constitutional Court. In February 2024, Judge N Manoim ordered Bliss Brands to comply with the Final Appeal Committee’s decision within three months. The order applied to the distribution of new packaging, rather than demanding the removal of products already in stores. In August 2024, Colgate filed a contempt application, arguing that Bliss Brands had not complied with Judge Manoim’s order. At the same time, Bliss Brands sought an interdict to stop the ARB ruling from being enforced while it pursued a further review. Judge Vally heard both matters. Judge Vally ruled that Bliss Brands had to comply with the earlier order within 30 days. A second contempt application was later heard by Judge Manoim, who found in December 2024 that Bliss Brands had breached the order, but limited enforcement to media under the ARB’s authority. Bliss Brands made changes the court found insufficient Bliss Brands argued that it had complied with the order by making significant changes to its Securex packaging. The company also claimed that Judge Vally and Judge Manoim used the wrong packaging versions for their comparisons, and that they should have compared the latest Securex packaging to the 2019 Protex packaging. The changes included printing the Securex trademark in a lighter shade of blue, italicising the font and adding two diagonal stripes. Two product names were changed from “Fresh” to “Fresh Dew” and from “Herbal” to “Herbal Essence”, while the positions of the product image and variant name were also altered. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that these changes were not significant. Judge Vally concluded that the May 2024 packaging was "hard to tell apart from the original unless you looked very closely," and the Supreme Court of Appeal agreed that the new packaging "very closely resembles the original offending packaging." Continued online advertising strengthened the contempt case The Supreme Court of Appeal also noted that the original Securex packaging still appeared on websites when Colgate filed its contempt application. Bliss Brands admitted this and said it had taken steps to remove the offending ads, but did not provide proof that these steps had worked. Judge Vally found that the original packaging was still being advertised on websites run by Bliss Brands, including the company’s own website. The Supreme Court of Appeal said this ongoing advertising showed that Bliss Brands was not following the order. When a court order is breached, it is assumed the breach was deliberate and in bad faith unless proven otherwise. Bliss Brands had to prove that its non-compliance was not intentional or in bad faith, but the Supreme Court of Appeal found the company did not provide enough evidence of its efforts to comply. The SCA referred to an earlier case where proof was presented that employees were told about a court order and steps were taken to prevent use of an offending logo. "Had Bliss Brands done the same, it could have met its burden of proof, but it failed to do so," Judge Steyn said. Court finds Bliss Brands wilfully disobeyed the order The SCA found that Bliss Brands’ additional changes to its Securex packaging showed it understood what was needed to comply with Judge Manoim’s order. The court also took into account the company’s delay in complying and its ongoing advertising of the old packaging. "Their bad faith is shown by their delay in complying with Judge Manoim’s order," Judge Steyn said. The SCA concluded that Bliss Brands’ failure to comply was deliberate and in bad faith, and that the company was guilty of civil contempt. The company introduced another version of Securex packaging in October 2024, but Colgate launched a second contempt application, saying this too broke the court order. Judge Manoim found that the October version was a continuing breach, and the Supreme Court of Appeal agreed. "Bliss Brands only made minor tweaks to the packaging and did not make meaningful changes," Judge Steyn said. The SCA dismissed both appeals by Bliss Brands. Colgate wins wider enforcement order Colgate’s cross-appeal focused on Judge Manoim’s decision to limit the enforcement order to media under the ARB’s authority. Colgate argued that this restriction was wrong because Bliss Brands had voluntarily accepted the ARB’s authority and participated in all the proceedings. The SCA agreed, citing an earlier Constitutional Court finding that a non-member who accepts the ARB’s authority can be bound by its decisions. The court noted that Bliss Brands had taken part in the ARB proceedings "without any protest." The SCA found no reason for Judge Manoim’s restriction and upheld Colgate’s cross-appeal. This meant the enforcement order could cover every platform where the offending packaging appeared, not just those covered by the ARB. Bliss Brands must now withdraw both versions The SCA set aside Judge Manoim’s 13 December 2024 order and replaced it with a new order. Bliss Brands must now comply with the earlier order immediately, and no later than 15 working days from the date of the SCAs order. The company must remove both the original and latest versions of its Securex packaging from every platform where they appear. The appeals were dismissed with costs, including fees for two counsel, while Colgate’s cross-appeal was upheld with costs, also covering two counsel. The nationwide withdrawal order is now the final ruling in this long-running Securex packaging dispute. Conviction.co.za Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

What's Hot

Bliss Brands must withdraw Securex packaging nationwide within 15 working days

The six lawyers shaping the evidence at the Madlanga Commission

Voting disqualification in sectional title scheme body corporates

Browsing: Bliss Brands

Bliss Brands must withdraw Securex packaging nationwide within 15 working days

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

Bliss Brands must withdraw Securex packaging nationwide within 15 working days

The six lawyers shaping the evidence at the Madlanga Commission

Voting disqualification in sectional title scheme body corporates

Parents sought R2.5 million for a child with cerebral palsy, but she had already died

Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

OUR PICKS

Can a housing estate legally scan your driving licence in South Africa?

Full Court overturns removal of Kempton Park Chief Magistrate Judith van Schalkwyk

Romance scam money ultimately cost Standard Bank forensic investigator her job

Subscribe to Updates

What's Hot

Browsing: Bliss Brands