Amka Products (Pty) Ltd v Amka Mtsm (Pty) Ltd and Another (CT011DEC2017) [2018] COMPTRI 16 (18 April 2018)

Saflii

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Amka Products (Pty) Ltd applied to the Companies Tribunal to have Amka Mtsm (Pty) Ltd's name changed due to confusion with its registered trademark 'AMKA'. The Tribunal found the Respondent's name violated Sections 11(2)(b) and (c) of the Companies Act by being confusingly similar and misleadingly implying association. The Applicant's 60-year history with the AMKA brand and evidence of potential consumer deception were critical factors. The order requires the Respondent to change its name within 60 days and use its registration number if non-compliant.

Issues

  • Whether First Respondent's name violates Section 11(2)(b) and (c) of the Companies Act by being confusingly similar to Applicant's registered trademark 'AMKA' and falsely implying an association with Applicant.
  • Whether Applicant is justified in bringing a default application after 14 months of delay, given its attempts to communicate with First Respondent via attorneys and evidence of First Respondent's acknowledgment of the issue.

Holdings

  • The Applicant's name is confusingly similar and falsely implies association with the Respondent, violating Sections 11(2)(b) and (c) of the Companies Act. The Tribunal found this could mislead the public into believing a connection exists.
  • An administrative order requires the First Respondent to change its name to avoid confusion with the Applicant's trademark as per Section 160(3)(b)(ii). The change must occur within 60 days, with the Applicant's name 'AMKA' prohibited in the new name.

Remedies

  • The First Respondent is permitted to use its registration number followed by 'South Africa' as a temporary name if unable to adopt another satisfactory name.
  • The Registrar of CIPC is directed to inform the First Respondent of the Tribunal's decision, ensure compliance, and invite the filing of an amended Memorandum of Incorporation.
  • The First Respondent is ordered to change its name to one that does not include the word 'AMKA', as it violates Sections 11(2)(b)(iii) and (c)(i) of the Act.
  • If the First Respondent fails to comply within 60 days, the Registrar must automatically change the name to the registration number without consent under Sections 160(3) and 14(2) of the Act.
  • The First Respondent must comply with the name change within 60 calendar days of receiving the order and file an amended Memorandum of Incorporation.

Legal Principles

The court applied the test for 'confusingly similar' company names under Section 11(2)(b) and (c) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, referencing passing-off principles and case law (e.g., Adidas AG v Pepkor, Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings) to determine that the use of 'AMKA' in the Respondent's name would reasonably mislead the public. It also considered Section 160's provisions for Tribunal jurisdiction over name disputes and the 'imperfect recollection' doctrine in assessing likelihood of confusion.

Precedent Name

  • Ewing v Buttercup Margarine Corporation
  • Highly Nutritious Food Company v Companies Tribunal
  • Link Estates v Rink Estates
  • Capital Estate v Holiday Inns Inc.
  • Adidas AG v Pepkor Retail Limited
  • Reckitt & Colman v SC Johnson
  • Standard Bank v United Bank

Cited Statute

  • Companies Regulation 153 of 2011
  • Companies Act 71 of 2008

Judge Name

Ishara Bodasing

Passage Text

  • 6.2 Applicant has shown that Respondent has transgressed Section 11(2)(b) and (c): its name is confusingly similar and falsely implies, or could reasonably mislead a person to believe incorrectly that the First Respondent is part of, or associated with the Applicant.
  • 7.1 An administrative order is made in terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii) that First Respondent change its name to one which does not incorporate the word AMKA as it is in contravention of Sections 11(2)(b)(iii) and (c)(i) of the Act.
  • 5.9 ...the learned judge commented on undesirability in terms of Section 45 (2) of the 1973 Companies Act: 'It is submitted that by allowing the close corporation name to remain on the register... its registration will hinder the registrar's role in maintaining and promoting good governance...'