ALL car windscreens legally sold in South Africa are shatterproof. That is to say that they all comply with the SABS standard which requires them to be resistant to penetration and disintegration through being manufactured as a laminate with a plastic centre core.

By implication, the brand produced by PG known as “Shatterprufe”, gives the false impression that only windscreens marked “Shatterprufe are shatterproof”. Both these words are pronounced exactly the same, thereby misleading the unsuspecting motorist into believing that they should only buy the more expensive “Shatterprufe” brand when actually, the less costly Commercial Auto Glass brand is just as suitable a windscreen and will more than adequately suffice for aftermarket fitment — and in some cases at half the price.

Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd has just won landmark court victory against the Baker Street Trust, which licenses the “Shatterprufe” brand to the PG Group, in the High Court following attempts to prevent Commercial Auto Glass from describing it’s shatterproof windscreens as shatterproof windscreens. Gilo Da Silva, MD of the company explains: “People thought that only 'Shatterprufe' windscreens did not shatter in an accident. Commercial Auto Glass brand windscreens obviously do not have the 'Shatterprufe' brand marked on the windscreen but they are still fully shatterproof, contrary to the impression 'Shatterprufe' tries very often to convey".

CAG therefore sued to have the “Shatterprufe” brand removed from the register because it had become misleading, alternatively that the registrations be endorsed to make it clear that they give no right to prevent competitors from truthfully describing their windscreens as shatterproof, or alternatively, a declaration by the court that the descriptive use does not infringe the trade mark rights. The Baker Street Trust which licenses the “Shatterprufe “ brand to the PG Group, counter sued for an interdict to stop CAG describing it’s windscreens as shatterproof.

Judge Kobus van Rooyen of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court handed down judgement earlier this year which granted CAG the declaration and dismissed the counter application, although he declined to remove the “Shatterprufe” mark from the trademarks register or to order that the registration be endorsed. Thus it is now clear that the “Shatterprufe” trademark may not be used to silence those who need to use the word “shatterproof” to inform their consumers of what they are selling, and in doing so, counteract the impression that the brand name “Shatterprufe” is something more than a brand name.

Back to News and Views