Who owns "Wings" ? : An affirmation of Trade Mark Law

The Johannesburg High Court’s decision in Wings Travel Management (Pty) Ltd v Satguru Travels (Pty) Ltd t/a Travelwings [2025] ZAGPJHC (4 August 2025) is a measured reminder that trade mark law protects distinctive brand identifiers, not ordinary language. The judgment turned on a technical but important assessment of the scope of registration, the treatment of composite marks, and the application of the confusion test to a discerning consumer base.

The Applicant's simpliciter mark was registered in a class for restaurant, bar, and certain accommodation services. The Court found these specifications did not extend to online flight bookings, which was the core of the Respondent’s business. This meant that the alleged infringement under section 34 failed at the first hurdle i.e., the services were not “in respect of which the trade mark is registered”. Enforcement rights are defined by the exact wording of the registration, not by the proprietor’s broader industry footprint.

The Applicant’s other registrations and their respective devices, were composite marks. The Court refused to isolate the “WINGS” element and treat it as if it were separately registered. The presence of “TRAVEL” in the Respondent’s mark was not disregarded as a purely descriptive addition; instead, it formed an integral part of the overall impression. Where a term is common or descriptive, it is inherently weaker and cannot be monopolised when used fairly in combination with other distinctive elements.

Applying the Plascon-Evans global appreciation test, the Court assessed similarity from the perspective of the average consumer in the relevant market, literate, informed, and technologically capable users purchasing high-value travel services online. This consumer is not making an impulsive purchase and is likely to notice the differences in visual presentation, conceptual meaning, and phonetic structure between “WINGS” and “TRAVELWINGS”. The comparison must be made on the overall impression of each mark, factoring in the nature of the services and the consumer’s level of care.

Echoing cases like Bata and Lucky Star, the Court warned against granting a monopoly over common words. “WINGS” in the context of travel is a term that other traders may legitimately wish to use, especially insofar as their business pertains to air travel. Absent acquired distinctiveness strong enough to override its descriptive character, the word remains open to fair use by competitors. The passing-off claim also failed, with the Court finding that the Applicant had not established sufficient goodwill in the specific market segment, nor shown that the Respondent’s branding misrepresented its services as those of the Applicant.

The decision is a technical reaffirmation of key trade mark law principles i.e., that registration scope is decisive; composite marks must be evaluated in their entirety; and the likelihood of confusion test is grounded in a realistic assessment of the target consumer. For brand owners relying on common terms, the message is clear: pair them with distinctive elements and define registration specifications precisely, or risk finding a mark unenforceable where it matters most.

Summarily, this case highlights and affirms the concept that you cannot “own” a common word just because you registered it as part of your brand, especially if it is widely used in your industry. Your trade mark only protects the exact goods or services it is registered for, and it will be compared to others in full, not piece by piece. If your name uses ordinary words, combine them with something unique and make sure your registration actually matches the services you offer. Otherwise, your competitors may be free to use something similar without breaking the law.