In the matter between:

and
CENTURY CITY APARTMENTS PROPERTY

JUDGMENT

DAVIS, J

Fundamentally, the point being made in this case is that Century City is, in effect, primarily as it has developed, a significant geographical space within the greater Cape Town area and accordingly traders would wish to use that name in the manner in which I have set it out before.

"In reality Touraust's submissions about character or quality and about the geographical reference do not represent separate arguments: The point of putting the matter either way is that the words "Chifley Tower" denate a connection with the Chifley Tower so that others providing similar services an i having a connection with Chifley Tower (particularly tenants of areas within the Chifley Tower) might properly wish to use the name in relation to their services The evidence showed, it was said, that the Chifley Tower formed part of the stated or advertised address of tenants with offices within the building and that the building has a very large office tower was one in which a great number of firms carried on business of providing services of various kinds.

"As a developer of the property the respondent is in the course of building an upmarket apartment block that it will market and sell as sectional title units. Once it has sold alJ the units the Respondent will have no further involvement in the completed development. For purposes of the application this fact is relevant. In addition to building apartments that will be sold as sectional titJe units it is common cause that the Respondent's apartment block will, in addition to providing accommodation, provide purchasers with concierge services, meeting rooms a fully equipped business as a centre, laundry services and the like that to quote the Applicant's heads of argument fall "within the broad penumbra of exhibition facilities, convention facilities and services of a personal nature rendered to meet individual requirements' ... Moreover and in the marketing side of the individual units a development that includes the other services and benefits referred to the Respondent is at the very least engaging in providing "merchandising services."

There is of course powerful merit in all of these arguments and that is the basis upon which this Court came to its conclusion.

However, there are two questions which do require some further answers. The first is whether this huge development, described by the respondent in its papers as a "prestigious address from which every business would aim to trade", "a "250 hectare city within a city at the heart of the greater Cape Town metropole which combines offices with residential, retail and leisure", now falls within the primary category of a geographical location which then would then not provide a justification for the kind of protection afforded to ft in this judgment

In short, the question for determination is not simply about a geographical location. It is concerned with whether geographical locations can be so privatised as to provide, in perpetuity, the kind of trademark protection which respondent has sought.