Automated Summary
Key Facts
WIRULINK (PTY) LIMITED (Applicant) filed an objection against WIRUNET INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER (PTY) LTD (First Respondent) for using a confusingly similar company name. The Applicant holds the WIRULINK trademark since 2006, while the First Respondent, registered in 2023, operates in the same industry. The Companies Tribunal found the names phonetically and visually similar, risking public confusion and reputational/financial harm to the Applicant. The Tribunal ordered the First Respondent to change its name to exclude 'WIRULINK' or 'WIRU', file an amendment within 60 days, and set an interim name change to its registration number if non-compliant within 3 months. The Applicant also alleged the First Respondent copied website content without permission.
Issues
The Applicant argued that the First Respondent's name, WIRUNET Internet Service Provider, is confusingly similar to the Applicant's well-known WIRULINK trademark, violating Section 11(2)(a)(iii) of the Companies Act which prohibits company names from being confusingly similar to registered trademarks. The Tribunal evaluated this under the Act's provisions to prevent reputational and financial harm.
Holdings
- The First Respondent is to file a notice of an amendment of its Memorandum of Incorporation, within 60 days of receipt of this order in order to change its name as per above.
- The First Respondent is hereby exempted from the requirement to pay the prescribed fee for filing the notice of amendment contemplated in this paragraph.
- In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with the order as aforementioned within 3 months, from the date of the order, that Companies and Intellectual Property Commission CIPC be directed, in terms of Section160(3) (b) (ii) read with section 14(2) of the Act, to change the respondent's name to its registered company number being 2023/907992/07 as the Respondent's interim company name on the Companies register.
- This Determination must be served upon the Respondent and the Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property Commission.
- The First Respondent is directed to change its name to one which does not incorporate and is not confusingly and or deceptively similar to Applicant's. It should not include the word WIRULINK and or WIRU in any form.
Remedies
- d. The First Respondent is hereby exempted from the requirement to pay the prescribed fee for filing the notice of amendment contemplated in this paragraph.
- e. This Determination must be served upon the Respondent and the Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property Commission.
- c. In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with the order as aforementioned within 3 months, from the date of the order, that Companies and Intellectual Property Commission CIPC be directed, in terms of Section160(3) (b) (ii) read with section 14(2) of the Act, to change the respondent's name to its registered company number being 2023/907992/07 as the Respondent's interim company name on the Companies register.
- a. The First Respondent is directed to change its name to one which does not incorporate and is not confusingly and or deceptively similar to Applicant's. It should not include the word WIRULINK and or WIRU in any form.
- b. The First Respondent is to file a notice of an amendment of its Memorandum of Incorporation, within 60 days of receipt of this order in order to change its name as per above.
Legal Principles
The Companies Tribunal applied Section 11(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, which prohibits company names from being confusingly similar to registered trademarks. The court determined that the Respondent's name 'WIRUNET' was confusingly similar to the Applicant's well-known 'WIRULINK' trademark, potentially misleading the public and causing reputational/financial harm. This aligns with the statutory purpose of protecting names from being passed off by new companies.
Cited Statute
Companies Act 71 of 2008
Judge Name
Hlaleleni Kathleen Dlepu
Passage Text
- 14. The purpose of section 11 of the Companies Act is to protect names from being passed off by new companies registering similar names at the expense of the original name holder of the company or trademark.
- 13. When members of the public see the Respondents name, they will think of the Applicant. Both the Applicant and the Respondent are in a similar business. This may give members of the public the impression that it is owned by the Applicant with the potential to cause reputational damage causing financial harm to the Applicant.
- 12. Section 11 (2) of the Companies Act requires me to determine whether the name of the respondent is confusingly similar and phonetically similar to that of the Applicants well known WIRULINK trademark. The names both start with the word WIRU in them. The names look similar and sound similar, and they are in the similar industry.