While SAB contended that the shirt takes "unfair advantage" of, and trades unfairly on, its characteristic trademarks and reputation, Laugh it Off believed the message was fair parody.
The battle between the beer giant and the small clothing concern, began in 2002 after SAB discovered Laugh it Off's "Black Labour; White Guilt" T-shirt. They demanded production of the shirt stop and when Laugh it Off refused to do this, legal action was threatened. The matter then came before the Cape High Court in February 2003.
The High Court ruled in favour of SAB in accordance with copyright and trademark law and said the t-shirt "could be said to boarder on hate speech". Laugh it Off appealed this decision and asked for the matter to be heard in Bloemfontein at The Supreme Court of Appeal. The request was granted, but not before SAB demanded that Laugh it Off provide security of costs before the matter could continue. The Cape Town High Court agreed with Laugh it off that "justice like the doors of the Ritz Hotel should be open to anyone."
In September 2004, Laugh it Off and SAB met in Bloemfontein, with the SAC finding that Laugh it Off didn't exercise its freedom of speech; it abused it. Again Laugh it Off appealed the decision and again the appeal was granted. This time both parties met on Constitution Hill in March 2005.
The ruling was awarded with costs, vindicating Laugh it Off's Justin Nurse's battle for his right to "freedom of expression".
This benchmark ruling will probably also encourage other brands which have been targets of Laugh it Off's acerbic wit in recent years on their T-shirts, to "laugh it off". Quite.
