On 4 August 2025, the Johannesburg High Court handed down a comprehensive judgment in Wings Travel Management (Pty) Ltd v Satguru Travels (Pty) Ltd t/a Travelwings, dismissing all claims by the applicant, Wings Travel Management (WTM), and providing important guidance on the limits of trade mark protection for common terms.
WTM sought wide-ranging interdictory and ancillary relief based on four registered WINGS trade marks in classes 39 and 43. It alleged that Satguru's use of the mark "TRAVELWINGS" infringed its rights under sections 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act and amounted to passing off.
The Court dismissed the application in its entirety. The key findings included:
- No Infringement of WINGS (simpliciter): Although WTM held a registration for WINGS in class 43, the respondent's services of primarily online flight bookings, were not covered by that class. The Court accepted that Satguru did not offer services such as permanent accommodation or food and beverage services.
- Composite Marks vs. Common Terms: The Court emphasised that WTM's other registered trade marks were composite marks (e.g., WINGSNALEDI, WINGS24 & Device) and that the word "WINGS" could not be treated in isolation. The presence of "TRAVEL" in Satguru's mark was significant and not merely descriptive.
- No Likelihood of Confusion: Applying well-established principles, the Court held that the average consumer in the market for travel services is sophisticated, literate, and unlikely to be confused by the TRAVELWINGS mark. The global impression created by the two marks was different in sound, concept, and appearance.
- Generic Terms Cannot Be Monopolised: Echoing the Bata and Lucky Star cases, the Court warned against granting monopolies over generic words like "WINGS". It held that TRAVELWINGS was more akin to "Powerhouse" in relation to "Power" and should not be deemed confusingly similar.
- Passing Off Claim Also Dismissed: WTM failed to establish that it owned the relevant goodwill or reputation in the mark or that the respondent misrepresented its services as those of the applicant.
The Court also granted a partial application to strike out argumentative portions of the applicant's replying affidavit and dismissed other interlocutory objections.
This judgment affirms that while trade mark law protects distinctive marks, it does not allow proprietors to monopolise common English words used in descriptive or composite form. It reinforces the importance of assessing marks in their entirety and from the perspective of reasonably informed consumers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
