Felix the Fire Bunny came under legal scrutiny this week after a company that claimed to own the fluffy icon alleged that a former employee, who left their employment four years ago, is illegally using their bunny to entertain and educate children.
But the former employee, Amith Jadoonandon, countered these allegations by saying that he used his own Easter bunny suit, which his wife had bought him.
The matter turned in the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, with the company Bujini Projects claiming that Jadoonandon had their Felix and they wanted him back.
They asked the court to order Jadoonandon to give back the Felix the Fire Bunny suit, the speaker, and the microphones used by Felix during his appearances. The company said Felix and his accessories belonged to it.
The company also wanted Jadoonandon to be stopped from offering the company’s clients training programmes similar to the training programmes offered by it.
It also wanted him interdicted from operating or advertising and giving the impression that he is an employee of the applicant.
Jadoonandon was an employee of Bujini until the end of December 2020. The application was issued in February 2022, more than two years later, but only now finalised.
Bujini complains that Jadoonandon was the last person to use the Felix the Fire Bunny suit, the speaker, and the microphones during November 2020.
Bujini alleges Jadoonandon has been approaching its customers and offering services to them as if he is still involved with Bujini.
Bujini relies on two confirmatory affidavits relating to two events, one in March and another in May 2021, when Jadoonandon allegedly used the Felix the Fire Bunny suit.
Acting Judge Lucas van Tonder remarked that the applicant’s founding papers are at best vague about the lapse of time between the last date of employment and the launch of the application.
“It is not clear on what basis a restraint more than two years later would still be justified,” he said.
In response to the allegation that he used the suit, Jadoonandon disputes that he used the bunny suit but alleged that instead, he presented an Easter egg hunt with an Easter bunny suit ordered by his wife.
Jadoonandon argued that the application is malicious after such a long time since his involvement with Bujini.
Judge Van Tonder questioned the confirmatory affidavits by the two people who claimed they saw Jadoonandon using the bunny suit. He said the confirmatory affidavits appeared to have been deposed in January 2021 but only date-stamped in 2022.
“The confirmatory affidavits are arguably null and void due to non-compliance with the formalities applicable to the oath. They were purportedly deposed before the founding affidavit existed or had been deposed to,” he said.
The judge added that on the facts, Jadoonandon disputes that he took ownership or possession of the bunny suit and equipment and disputes that he uses it in the manner alleged by Bujini.
Judge van Tonder stated that the disputes cannot be resolved on the papers; thus, the application must fail.
An additional challenge for Bujini is the fact that the contract it relied on (for restraint of trade) did not stipulate a duration for the intended restraint and stipulates applicability to the entire Republic of South Africa.
The judge, in turning down the application, found it was flawed from the start.
Pretoria News