On 6 August 2025, in Cape Town, the Western Cape Division of the High Court of South Africa heard a dispute concerning alleged infringement of three registered industrial designs for rooftop solar panel mounting brackets. The applicant, Balster Jan Nienhuis, represented by a CWB South Africa patent attorney, claimed that the respondent, Africo Solar (Pty) Ltd, importer and wholesaler of solar products, had distributed products that replicated or closely resembled his protected designs. He sought a court order and further relief to prevent the unauthorised use.

The respondent admitted to distributing identical brackets but argued that selling identical brackets did not automatically constitute infringement because these brackets had other potential uses outside the protected Class 13 (solar panel mounting systems), such as for shelving, geyser, or lighting fixture mounting.

Legal Framework

The Court used a four-part test to assess infringement: whether the respondent’s actions could amount to infringement, whether the product fits the registered class, whether its use matches the design’s scope, and whether a valid legal defence was raised.

The Court emphasised that design protection is determined by the article’s visual features and its predominant purpose, rather than every conceivable use to which it might be put. In terms of section 20(1) of the Designs Act, a registered proprietor has the right to exclude others from making, selling, or commercially exploiting any article that falls within the specified class. The key question is whether the article itself belongs to that class — not whether its method of use falls within that class.

Evidence and Findings

Multiple facts supported the inference that Africo Solar sold its brackets predominantly for solar panel mounting:

• The respondent’s name suggests a focus on solar products;
• The brackets were branded with the trade mark “VOLTA,” owned by Africo Trading Company (Pty) Ltd, and associated with solar energy;
• The “VOLTA” mark is registered in classes that include solar panel brackets;
• The applicant alleged that Africo’s principal business involves solar panel sales and installations — a claim not disputed;
• The brackets were advertised as solar panel mounting systems; and
• The design origin (Nas Moulds) and bracket features matched those used for solar panel mounting.

The respondent failed to provide specific details about how the brackets were sold or used. Instead of denying the solar-related use, the respondent merely asserted that the brackets could also serve other purposes. The Court found this defence insufficient and concluded that the brackets were marketed and sold predominantly for solar panel mounting.

Court’s Interpretation and Ruling

The Court held that if an article is predominantly used within the scope of the registered design, it falls within the protection afforded by section 20(1) of the Designs Act, even if it may also be used in other classes. Expecting the proprietor to foresee every conceivable use would place an unreasonable burden and open the door to circumvention of design protection. This interpretation aligns with the Designs Act’s purpose: to protect innovation and ensure the proprietor enjoys the full benefit of the registration. The Court found that the respondent’s conduct constituted infringement and that the applicant was entitled to relief.

The court ordered the respondent to:

• Cease infringing the applicant’s registered designs (F2022/00395, F2022/01043, F2022/01044);
• Hand over all infringing articles in its possession to the rights owner for destruction;
• Continue with an enquiry into damages;
• Pay the applicant’s legal costs on a punitive scale; and
• Refer any procedural disputes related to the enquiry to the Court.

The Court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s legal costs on a punitive scale.

Further procedural disputes will be referred to the same court.