The case concerned the proper interpretation of anti-trademark dilution provisions of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 in the context of the sale of T-shirts parodying established commercial brands.

In response, Laugh It Off contended, first, that it had not infringed the statutory provision, insofar as it had not been established that its use of the Black Label imagery would be detrimental to the brand's reputation.

This finding turned on his interpretation of the relevant provision, which was based on the court's responsibility to seek: a construction of section 34(1)(c) most compatible with the right to free expression.

Courts must be astute not to convert the anti-dilution safeguard of renowned trade marks usually controlled by powerful financial interests into a monopoly adverse to other claims of expressive conduct of at least equal cogency and worth in our broader society.The majority found that, thus interpreted, section 34 of the Trade Marks Act must be read to require that a finding of trademark infringement depends on the trademark-owner demonstrating "a likelihood of substantial economic detriment".

Justice Albie Sachs, who concurred in Moseneke's judgment, also filed a separate opinion on the role of parody and humour in sustaining constitutional democracy.

This question is raised whenever the irresistible force of free expression, in the form of parody, meets the immovable object of property rights, in the form of trademark protection.Sachs went on to explain that, though he agreed with Moseneke's argument, he also believed that Laugh It Off's appeal could be upheld "on more substantial grounds": that is, that SAB's case had not "failed simply because they did not back it up with clip-board evidence to prove a measure of detriment".