The ruling, handed down by Judge Vally, requires Bliss to remove the packaging from all advertising platforms within 30 days. Failure to comply will allow Colgate-Palmolive to seek further legal action. Furthermore, Bliss is barred from advancing any legal applications in court until it purges its contempt.
The ruling follows an earlier decision by Judge Manoim in February 2024, which ordered Bliss to modify its packaging to avoid confusion with Colgate-Palmolive’s Protex soap. Bliss had made changes, including altering the font, colours, and repositioning product images on the Securex packaging, but the court found that these changes were largely superficial and failed to meet the requirements of the previous ruling.
At the core of the dispute is the visual similarity between Securex and Protex, two of the most prominent hygiene soap brands in South Africa. Colgate-Palmolive, which holds a significant share of the market with Protex, argued that Bliss’s packaging was intentionally designed to confuse consumers, leading them to mistakenly purchase Securex.
Bernadette Versfeld, Ziyanda Ngcobo and Lerato Niklaas 17 Jun 2021
Bliss claimed that it had taken significant steps to comply with the court’s original order, including italicising the Securex brand name, lightening the blue colour used on its packaging, and renaming certain product variants from "Herbal" to "Herbal Essence" and "Fresh" to "Fresh Dew." However, Judge Ngoepe dismissed these changes as “cosmetic,” noting that the overall design remained strikingly similar to the original packaging that had been the subject of the legal complaint.
In addition to the packaging dispute, Bliss was found in contempt for continuing to advertise its old packaging on various platforms, including its own website. Colgate-Palmolive presented evidence showing that the old packaging was still visible on websites under Bliss’s control, despite the court order requiring its removal.
Bliss admitted that it had not fully removed the offending packaging from all platforms but argued that it had taken steps to comply. The court, however, was not persuaded, stating that Bliss had not shown sufficient proof that its efforts had resulted in the complete removal of the old designs.
“Allowing Bliss to continue its legal application while still in contempt would harm the repute and dignity of this court,” said the Judge in his ruling. The court emphasised that a party in contempt cannot seek the protection of the court while disregarding its authority.
