SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy




THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Not reportable
Case no: 882/2023
In the matter between:

LOGIK GROUP AFRICA (PTY) LTD
t/a FIRE LOGIK APPELLANT

and

FIRE LOGIC (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Logik Group Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Fire Logik v Fire Logic (Pty)
Ltd (882/2023) [2025] ZASCA 164 (28 October 2025)
Coram: ZONDI DP and MOLEFE JA and MOLOPA-SETHOSA, KOEN and
BLOEM AJJA
Heard: 18 November 2024
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives via email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be
11:00 am on 28 October 2025.
Summary: Delict– Passing-off proceedings onus of proving reputation for passing-
off application discharged – whether the respondent established the requirements of
passing-off and was thus entitled to interdictory relief against the appellant.

2

3

ORDER

On appeal from: Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Gqeberha (Bands AJ,
sitting as court of first instance):
The appeal is dismissed with costs.


JUDGMENT

Molopa-Sethosa AJA (Zondi DP and Molefe JA and Koen and Bloem AJJA
concurring):

[1] This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Eastern Cape Division
of the High Court, Gqeberha (the high court) . The appellant, Logik Group Africa
(Pty) Ltd t/a Fire Logik (Logik Group), was interdicted and restrained from passing
off its services as that of the respondent, Fire Logic (Pty) Ltd (Fire Logic), or as
being connected in the course of trade with Fire Logic , by using the name ‘Fire
Logik’ in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape provinces. The appeal is with the leave
of this Court.

[2] The issues in this appeal are: firstly, whether Fire Logic discharged the onus
of establishing its reputation. Secondly, whether the high court correctly found that
it had proved the requirements of passing -off and was thus entitled to interdictory
relief against Logik Group.

4
[3] Fire Logic was incorporated on 25 February 1994. Since 1994 it has been
known as, and traded as, Fire Logic in the provinces of the Eastern Cape and Western
Cape. It has been delivering the services of fire protection and maintenance in these
provinces for over 27 years. Fire Logic alleged that over the past 27 years it has built
up a substantial reputation in the business of providing fire protection and
maintenance services, especially in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape provinces.
Members of the public associate their trade name with such services.

[4] In he r founding affidavit, Fire Logic ’s director, Ms Louise Scheffer
(Ms Scheffer), alleged that Fire Logic’s average annual turnover over three years
prior to July 2021, was R30 million; an average amount of R100 000 was spent on
marketing per year; and that Fire Logic was registered with the Automatic Sprinkler
Inspection Bureau (the ASIB) under the name ‘Fire Logics’. These allegations have
not been gainsaid.

[5] Logik Group, which was registered in 2015, began operating under the name
‘Fire Logik’. Fire Logic contended that allowing Logik Group to continue operating
under the name ‘Fire Logik’ would lead to confusion, due to the similarity of their
names, especially given that both companies operated in the same industry.

[6] In 2016, it came to Fire Logic’s attention that Logik Group had applied for an
ASIB license in the Port Elizabeth region, using the name ‘Fire Logik’. On 1 June
2016, Fire Logic’s attorneys wrote a letter to Logik Group. It raised concerns that
the names of the two entities were pronounced the same and spelt almost the same ,
and that such similarities would cause members of the public to be confused in to
believing that Logik Group’s business was that of Fire Logic; and that its conduct
amounted to passing-off.

5

[7] Fire Logic sought an undertaking from Logik Group that it would not trade in
the Eastern and Western Cape provinces under the name Fire Logik; and that Logik
Group should change the name of its company. In a letter dated 7 July 2016, the
Chief Director of Logik Group, Mr Stephen Duncan Ayerst, denied that Logik Group
had applied to the ASIB to trade in the Eastern or Western Cape . He, however,
stated its intention to change its name from Fire Logik to Logik Group, in his own
words, was ‘in order to avoid any confusion in the eyes of the public between your
client and our company’. (Emphasis added.)

[8] On 10 August 2016, Logik Group changed its name from Fire Logik (Pty) Ltd
to Logik Group Africa (Pty) Ltd. However, despite this name change, Logik Group
continued trading as Fire Logik.

[9] In a letter dated 9 November 2020 , Logik Group, through its consultant s,
Glenro Commercial & Construction Consultants (Pty) Ltd, advised, inter alia: that a
company named Logi k Group Africa East Cape (Pty) Ltd was registered with the
Company Intellectual Property Commission on 28 October 2020 ; this new entity
was in the process of being registered with the South African Revenue Service; and
it would update its website1 by 20 November 2020, in order to identify Logik Group
Africa (Pty) Ltd as the actual juristic entity . However, until such time as Logi k
Group Africa East Cape (Pty) Ltd is registered with the South African Revenue
Service, it would not refrain from submitting a tender in its name, i.e. Logik Group
Africa t/a Fire Logik.


1 Which referred to Logik Group Africa, trading as Fire Logik.

6
[10] It is common cause that in August 2021, when Fire Logic launched its
application to interdict and restrain Logik Group from passing-off its services as that
of Fire Logic, Logik Group’s website had not been updated in accordance with its
undertaking made some nine months earlier in its letter of 9 November 2020 . The
website still recorded Logik Group’s company details as ‘Logik Group Africa t/a
Fire Logik’.

[11] Furthermore, on 8 September 2022, almost a year later, when Fire Logic’s
supplementary affidavit was deposed to, Logik Group still traded as Fire Logik, and
its website still reflected the name ‘LOGIK GROUP AFRICA T/A FIRE LOGIK’.
Logik Group acknowledged that its website had remained open and active, but
alleged that as at the date of its answering affidavit, 29 September 2022, ‘the website
. . . was no longer active and had been shut down’ . Thus, Logik Group , despite
having changed its name from Fire Logik (Pty) Ltd to Logik Group Africa (Pty) Ltd
on 10 August 2016, simply continued to trade as F ire Logik for the following six
years. Its email address was reflected as i[...]; whilst its website remained w[...]. The
word ‘firelogik’ is no doubt deceptively similar to Fire Logic’s name, and is bound
to confuse the public.

[12] The significant market confusion between the two companies reached a peak
in 2019. That was when Fire Logic started receiving purchase orders meant for Logik
Group from a retail chain store.

[13] In 2021, Fire Logic launched its application in the high court, seeking a final
interdict to prevent Logik Group Africa from using the name ‘Fire Logik’. It argued
that the similarity in names caused confusion among customers ; infringed on its
established goodwill; and constituted passing-off. Logik Group denied that there was

7
significant likelihood of confusion. It alleged that it had tried to change its name in
2016. It also denied that Fire Logic had built a reputation under its name . It
contended that in fact Fire Logik, had ‘a poor reputation in the industry’.

[14] Logik Group , on its own version, illustrated just how easily confusion
occurred between it and Fire Logic during August 2022. Logik Group referred to an
email requesting a costing from Bantry Construction, for a project which was meant
for Logik Group, but was sent to Fire Logic. Mr David Cronje (Mr Cronje) from
Bantry Construction , did not have the contact information of Logik Group and
performed a Google search of the name ‘Firelogic’. Fire Logic’s website popped up
and he found the email address for Fire Logic. He then used the email address but
did not receive a reply. Mr Cronje needed an urgent response and therefore contacted
the employer who provided him with the email address for Fire Logic.

[15] Logic Group denied any wrongdoing on its part . It did not proffer any
explanation as to how it arrived at its trade name, nor d id it address the similarity
thereof to that of Fire Logic’s.

[16] The high court found that: Fire Logic had established a reputation in its name;
the similarity in the names could indeed cause confusion ; there was sufficient
evidence of customer confusion ; and Fire Logic’s brand was deserving of legal
protection. As a result, it found for Fire Logic and interdicted the use by Logik Group
of the name ‘Fire Logik ’ in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape provinces. The
question is whether the high court’s finding was correct.

[17] Passing-off is a branch of our common law that protects the goodwill of a
business from misrepresentation by others. The claimant must show that it has a

8
reputation or goodwill in its product or brand; further, that the other party’s actions
constitute a misrepresentation, causing, or likely to cause confusion or deception
among consumers. Furthermore, the claimant must demonstrate that it has suffered,
or is likely to suffer damage to its reputation or goodwill as a result of the
misrepresentation. As Wallis JA succinctly put it in Pioneer Foods (Pty) Limited v
Bothaville Milling (Pty) Limited:2
‘. . . [P]roof of passing off requires proof of reputation, misrepresentation and damage .’3
(Emphasis added.)

[18] In Capital Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holiday Inns
Inc and Others (Capital Estate),4 Rabie JA defined passing off as follows:
‘The wrong known as passing off consists in a representation by one person that his business (or
merchandise, as the case may be) is that of another, or that it is associated with that of another,
and, in order to determine whether a representation amounts to a passing-off, one enquires
whether there is a reasonable likelihood that members of the public may be confused into
believing that the business of the one is, or is connected with, that of another. . . Whether there is
a reasonable likelihood of such confusion arising is, of course, a question of fact which will have
to be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case.’5 (Emphasis added.)

[19] In Brian Boswell Circus (Pty) Ltd and Another v Boswell-Wilkie Circus (Pty)
Ltd,6 this Court held that passing-off is a form of wrongful competition and that:

2 Pioneer Foods (Pty) Limited v Bothaville Milling (Pty) Limited [2014] ZASCA 6; [2014] 2 All SA 282 (SCA); 2014
BIP 486 (SCA)
3 Ibid para 7. See also Caterham Car Sales & Coachworks Ltd v Birkin Cars (Pty) Ltd and Another 1998 (3) SA 938;
[1998] 3 All SA 175 (A) (SCA) paras 13; 15; and 16 . The requirements for passing off are based on the principles
outlined in the English case of Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and Others [1990] 2 WUKHL 123, [1990]

1 W.L.R. 491; [1990] 1 All E.R. 873 (known as The Jif Lemon case). These may be explained as follows:
(a) Reputation: The business must demonstrate that it enjoys a reputation in the relevant market.
(b) Misrepresentation: There must be a misrepresentation that deceives or is likely to deceive the public.
(c) Damage: The misrepresentation must cause or likely to cause harm to the plaintiff’s reputation or business interests.
4 Capital Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holiday Inns Inc and Others 1977 (2) SA 916 (A);
referred to by this Court in Koni Multinational Brands (Pty) Ltd v Beiersdorf AG [2021] ZASCA 24; 2021 BIP 15
(SCA); [2021] HIPR 162 (SCA); 2021 JDR 0414 (SCA) para 19.
5 Ibid Capital Estate at 929C-E. Citations omitted.
6 Brian Boswell Circus (Pty) Ltd and Another v Boswell -Wilkie Circus (Pty) Ltd 1985 (4) SA 466 (A) ; [1985] 2 All
SA 512 (A).

9
‘. . . [i] t is unlawful because it results, or at any rate is calculated to result, in the improper filching
of another’s trade and an improper infringement of his goodwill and/or because it may cause injury
to that other’s trade reputation ( Capital Estate case supra at 930H-931C). In a passing off action
factors of importance are: (1) whether the defendant is engaged in the same field of business
activity as the plaintiff, and (2) whether the plaintiff’s trade or business name has acquired a
reputation, i.e. has become distinctive of, or in the minds of the public is associated with, the
business carried on by the plaintiff. . .’7

[20] In the present matter, in order to succeed in the passing-off claim, Fire Logic
had to allege and prove a reputation. Fire Logic’s allegation of reputation was denied
by Logik Group. However , Logik Group did not dispute that Fire Logic had been
trading for 27 years under the name ‘Fire Logic’. The allegations regarding Logik
Group’s annual turnover of R30 million and marketing expenses of R100 000 per
year, also could not be disputed.

[21] In GPS Restaurante BK v Cantina Tequila (Mexican Connection CC) and
Others,8 the court held that:
‘An important factor to keep in mind is that goodwill in the sense of an established reputation can
sometimes be inferred from the evidence of sales or of advertising involving the feature in
question.’9

[22] Adopting a robust and common sense approach,10 it is clear that the high court
correctly found that Fire Logic established a reputation under the name ‘Fire Logic’;
and the public associates its trade name with Fire Logic’s services in the Eastern
Cape and Western Cape provinces. Considering Logik Group’s conduct, it is clear
that it was not operating honestly under its own name. This is because Fire Logic

7 Ibid paras 9 and 10.
8 GPS Restaurante BK v Cantina Tequila (Mexican Connection CC) and others [1997] 1 All SA 603 (T).
9 Ibid at 609.

9 Ibid at 609.
10 John Craig (Pty) Ltd v Dupa Clothing Industries (Pty) Ltd 1977 (3) SA 144 (T) at 155H.

10
was registered in 1994, and Logik Group was registered with the same name 21 years
later, in 2015.

[23] Further, Logik Group, after having been requested by Fire Logic to change its
name, carried on trading under the same name as Fire Logic . It did so despite
undertaking not to do so and acknowledging that it wanted to avoid any confusion
in the eyes of the public between itself and Fire Logic.

[24] As was held in Capital Estate:
‘In the present case the respondents have established a likelihood of confusion. If they are not
given the protection they seek, they will, in the above-quoted words of VAN DEN HEEVER, J.A.,
be exposed to “nadele wat kan spruit uit enige onwil” which the appellants (or others who use the
name “Holiday In n” on the appellants’ authority) may incur with members of the public, and,
having regard to the appellants’ conduct as disclosed in the papers, I consider that the respondents
should not – in the words of GREENBERG, J.A., in the Truck and Car case, supra – be required
to leave their reputation at the mercy of parties who ex hypothesi have wrongly conducted
themselves so as to cause confusion.’11

[25] The undisputed evidence shows that Fire Logic has been providing fire
protection and maintenance services for more than 27 years ; it has built up a
substantial reputation in the Eastern and Western Cape provinces; and members of
the public associate its trade name with such services . T his is supported by an
average annual turnover of R30 million and an average annual marketing spend of
R100 000 . All these facts clearly establish its reputation within the industry in
question. There is no doubt that Logik Group’s trade name caused confusion to the
public. In fact, Logik Group conceded in its own letters that there is a likelihood of

11 Capital Estate at 932C-D.

11
customer confus ion. The evidence clearly establishes both reputation and public
confusion.

[26] In the light of the above, the submission by Logik Group, that Fire Logic failed
to establish reputation , must thus fail. The high court cannot be faulted for
concluding that Logik Group’s allegations regarding Fire Logic’s failure to establish
reputation, in the face of Fire Logic’s positive assertions, amounted to no more than
an impermissible bare denial, and insufficient to raise a genuine dispute of fact. This
is particularly so where the disputing party (Logik Group) must necessarily possess
knowledge of the factual matrix so as to be able to provide an answer, or
countervailing evidence. There is no real dispute of fact . T he high court was
accordingly entitled to decide the matter on the papers.

[27] In the result, the following order is made:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.




________________________
L M MOLOPA-SETHOSA
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

12
Appearances

For the appellant: A J Glendinning
Instructed by: E Taylor Attorneys, Krugersdorp
Symington De Kok Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For the respondent: T Zietsman
Instructed by: Greyvensteins Inc, Port Elizabeth
Muller Gonsior Attorneys, Bloemfontein.