Page 1 of 13
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT PRETORIA
Case No.: CT02417ADJ2025
In the matter between:
ALTRON LIMITED Applicant
And
ALTRON MOTIVES (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2024/054126/07) First Respondent
and
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE COMPANIES
AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION Second Respondent
TRIBUNAL MEMBER: D. TERBLANCHE
DATE OF DECISION: 5 January 2026
DECISION AND REASONS
THE PARTIES
Page 2 of 13
1. The Applicant is ALTRON LIMITED, a public company registered in South Africa
(registration number 1947/024583/06) with its business address at Altron
Campus, 20 Woodlands Drive, Woodlands Office Park, Woodmead, Gauteng,
2192.
2. The First Respondent is ALTRON MOTIVES (PTY) LTD , registered in South Africa
(registration number 2024/054126/07) with its address at 360 Rivonia
Boulevard, Edenburg, Sandton, Gauteng, 2128.
3. The Second Respondent is the Commissioner of the Companies and Intellectual
Property Commission, appointed under Section 189 of the Act and cited in his
official capacity.
THE APPLICATION
4. This is an application brought in terms of Section 160 of the Companies Act 71
of 2008 ("the Act"). The Applicant seeks a determination by the Tribunal that
the name of the First Respondent, ALTRON MOTIVES (PTY) LTD (Registration
Number: 2024/054126/07), does not satisfy the requirements of Section 11 of
the Act. Consequently, the Applicant seeks an order directing the First
Respondent to change its name, in accordance with the provisions of Section
160(3)(b)(ii) of the Act.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
5. This information comes from the Applicant’s submissions as recorded in the Tribunal
record.
Page 3 of 13
6. Upon becoming aware of the First Respondent's registration, the Applicant took
immediate steps to assert its rights. On 13 May 2025, the Applicant addressed a formal
letter to the First Respondent, outlining its proprietary rights in the ALTRON mark and
seeking clarification regarding the nature of the First Respondent’s business activities.
Despite this direct approach, the First Respondent failed to provide any response to the
Applicant's communication.
7. In the absence of any engagement from the First Respondent, the Applicant proceeded
to file the present application with the Companies Tribunal on 3 October 2025. The
application was duly served on both the First and Second Respondents, thereby
ensuring that all parties were formally notified of the proceedings.
8. Notwithstanding proper service and notification, the First Respondent did not file an
answering affidavit within the prescribed 20 -day period. The First Respondent’s failure
to respond occurred in spite of its clear awareness of the application and the issues at
hand.
9. As a result of the First Respondent’s failure to engage with the process or submit any
opposition within the stipulated timeframe, the application is considered by the
Tribunal on an unopposed and default basis.
THE APPLICANT’S RIGHTS IN THE ALTRON MARK
10. The Applicant has conducted business under the ALTRON name since 1965 and
holds registrations for a portfolio of ALTRON trade marks in South Africa. These
registrations span multiple classes of goods and services, reflecting the breadth
of the Applicant’s commercial activities.
11. The Applicant serves as the holding company of the Altron group, a leading
technology conglomerate with numerous divisions that operate across a range
of sectors, including telecommunications, fintech, healthcare, and security. The
Page 4 of 13
ALTRON mark is used prominently by all entities within the group, reinforcing
the association between the mark and the Applicant’s diverse business
operations.
12. Through many years of extensive use, significant investment in marketing and
advertising, and substantial annual turnover, the Applicant has established a
strong reputation and accrued substantial goodwill in the ALTRON trade mark.
As a result, the mark is widely recognised throughout South Africa and qualifies
for protection as a well-known trade mark under the Trade Marks Act.
THE APPLICANT’S GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
13. The Applicant claims an interest in the First Respondent’s name under Section
160(1) of the Act, alleging it closely resembles and could mislead due to its
similarity with the well-known ALTRON trademark.
14. The Applicant cites strong statutory and common law rights, a positive
reputation, and considerable goodwill in ALTRON, which qualifies as a well -
known mark under Section 34(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act.
15. Section 160(2)(b) allows such applications at any time based on good cause.
Altron Motives (Pty) Ltd uses "Altron" as its principal identifier, which matches
the Applicant’s mark, while "Motives" is merely descriptive.
16. The First Respondent's name is confusingly similar and may suggest an
affiliation, causing public misperception. As a result, the name does not comply
with Sections 11(2)(a), (b), or (c) and falls under Section 160(3)(b).
Page 5 of 13
17. Any unauthorised use of the ALTRON mark could unfairly benefit from or harm
its reputation and distinctiveness, resulting in trademark infringement per
Section 34(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act.
18. Section 160(1) of the Act provides that:
"any other person with an interest in the name of a company, may apply to
the Companies Tribunal in the prescribed manner and form for a
determination whether the name, or the reservation, registration or use of
the name, or the transfer of any such reservation or registration of a name,
satisfies the requirements of this Act."
19. The Applicant has valid reasons to claim that the First Respondent's company
name violates Section 11(2) of the Act. If this application is not reviewed, the
Applicant may face harm, as they cannot monitor or control the First
Respondent’s service quality. Moreover, due to the similarity between the First
Respondent's name and the ALTRON trademark, any services provided could be
wrongly linked to the Applicant.
20. Sections 11(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act, as far as they are pertinent, read as
follows.
"(2) The name of a company must –
(a) not be the same as –( iii) a registered trade mark belonging to a
person other than the company, or a mark in respect of which an
application has been filed in the Republic for registration. as a
trade mark or a well -known trade mark as contemplated in
Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act. of 1993 (Act No. 94 of 1993)
unless the registered owner of that trade mark has consented in
writing to the use of the mark as the name of the company; or...
Page 6 of 13
(b) not be confusingly similar to a name, trade mark, mark, word or
expression contemplated in paragraph (a) unless –(iii) in the case
of a name similar to a trademark or mark referred to in
paragraph (a)(iii), the company is the registered owner of the
business name, trade mark, or mark, or is authorised by the
registered owner to use it: or… (iv) in the case of a name similar to
a mark, word or expression referred to in paragraph (a)(iv), the
name of that mark, work or expression by the company is
permitted by or in terms of the Merchandise Marks Act. 1941.
(c) Not falsely imply or suggest, or be such as would reasonably
mislead a person to believe incorrectly, that the company - is
part of, or associated with, any other person or entity...”
21. The company name "Altron Motives (Pty) Ltd" uses "ALTRON" as its main and
most memorable feature, which is identical to the Applicant’s well-known
ALTRON trademark. Since "Altron" appears first in the company name and
"Motives" is purely descriptive, it does not distinguish this name from the
Applicant’s recognized brand.
22. Given these facts, it’s clear that "ALTRON," being the focal point of the First
Respondent's company name, not only infringes on the Applicant’s trademark
rights but also fails to meet the requirements set out in Section 11(2) of the Act.
This similarity between the names could easily mislead or confuse the public
into believing there is some connection when none exists.
23. The issue is worsened by the fact that "Motives" does nothing to create
distinction, while the Applicant’s ALTRON mark is widely known and legally
protected.
Page 7 of 13
24. Using an identical or deceptively similar mark without authorization may
weaken the distinctive reputation of the ALTRON trademark, harm the
Applicant’s interests, and negatively affect public perception of its services.
25. Therefore, "Altron Motives (Pty) Ltd" is confusingly and deceptively similar to
the Applicant's established trademark, which spans various industries and
services. The public could very well assume that the First Respondent’s business
is part of, or affiliated with, the Applicant’s group because of this similarity.
26. There is a significant risk that people might mistakenly believe the First
Respondent is connected to the Applicant, due to the nearly identical company
name. As a result, the First Respondent's name does not comply with Sections
11(2)(a), (b), or (c) and could be subject to corrective orders under Section
160(3b) of the Act.
27. According to Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, the rights granted by
registering the Applicant’s ALTRON trademark are infringed if an identical or
very similar mark is used in relation to the same or similar goods or services,
likely causing confusion.
28. The Applicant seeks an order
28.1. directing the First Respondent to change its name to one which does not
incorporate ALTRON and which is not confusingly and / or deceptively
similar to the trade mark ALTRON in the event that the First Respondent
fails to change its name within 3 months from the date of the order;
28.2. directing the Second Respondent, in terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii) read
with Section 142 of the Act, to change the name of the First Respondent
Page 8 of 13
“K2024 /054126/07 (Pty) Ltd", as the First Respondent's interim company
name on the Companies Register;
28.3. granting costs of this Application in favour of the Applicant, as the
Applicant took all reasonable steps to resolve this matter amicably and to
avoid lodging a company name objection; and
28.4. granting the Applicant further and/or alternative relief.
THE TRIBUNAL’S ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
29. Before the Tribunal can consider this application by default, it must first confirm that it
has the authority to do so. The Companies Act, 2011 and its Regulations set out the
rules for these proceedings. Here, the Applicant needs to have met all procedural steps
for both submitting and serving the application on the appropriate parties.
30. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine this matter is clearly established under
Section 160 of the Companies Act. Procedurally, the application was properly
instituted and served upon both Respondents. Despite receiving notice, the
First Respondent elected not to oppose the application or file an answering
affidavit. Given the lack of response, the Tribunal may proceed to consider the
Application in terms of Regulation 153. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision is based
exclusively on the undisputed submissions presented by the Applicant and the legal
precedents referenced in its supporting documents.
31. The Applicant has demonstrated a clear and substantive interest in this
proceeding, holding both registered trade mark rights and extensive common
law rights in the distinctive ALTRON mark. Furthermore, the Applicant has
shown good cause for bringing this application. It acted with appropriate
diligence upon discovering the Respondent’s registration, first attempting to
Page 9 of 13
resolve the matter amicably through correspondence before resorting to this
formal objection.
32. The crux of the Applicant‘s case is that the First Respondent’s name, Altron
Motives (Pty) Ltd, incorporates the Applicant’s ALTRON trade mark as its
dominant and memorable feature. The suffix "Motives" is merely descriptive
and does not serve to distinguish the Respondent from the Applicant.
Consequently, the Respondent’s name is confusingly and deceptively similar to
the Applicant’s well -known ALTRON trade mark, in contravention of Sections
11(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. The similarity is such that it would reasonably
mislead the public into believing, incorrectly, that the First Respondent is part of
or associated with the Applicant’s business, contravening Section 11(2)(c) of the
Act.
33. The applicable legal test for confusion originates from Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC,
2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA), which he ld that a “ marked resemblance” that would
“immediately bring to mind” the other name is sufficient. The Tribunal considered and
agrees with the authority the Applicant placed before the Tribunal that when comparing
names, courts consider not only side -by-side similarity but also imperfect recollection
(American Chewing Products Corp v American Chickle Co 1948 (2) SA 736A).
34. The ultimate test is whether, on a comparison of the two marks, there is a reasonable
likelihood of confusion if both are to be used together in a normal and fair manner, in
the ordinary course of business.
35. “Likelihood” refers to a reasonable probability, and in considering whether the use of
the respondent's mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, regard must be
had to the essential function of a trade mark, namely to indicate the origin of the goods
in connection with which it is used. More recently, this Court in Bata Ltd v Face
Fashion CC and another 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA) pointed out that the approach
Fashion CC and another 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA) pointed out that the approach
adopted in Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport accords with South African
case law. There it was said that the likelihood of confusion must “be appreciated
Page 10 of 13
globally” and that the “global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity
of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks,
bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.”
36. In the present case, a direct comparison of the Applicant’s trade mark and the
first Respondent’s name highlights the central issue at hand.
36.1. The Applicant’s mark, ALTRON, is well-known and distinctive.
36.2. The Respondent’s company name, Altron Motives (Pty) Ltd, features
"Altron" as the dominant, memorable, and distinctive element, while
"Motives" is merely descriptive and fails to differentiate the Respondent
from the Applicant.
36.3. Visually, phonetically, and conceptually, the similarity between the names
is striking.
37. This similarity constitutes a clear violation of Section 11(2) of the Companies
Act.
38. The Respondent’s name is confusingly similar to the Applicant’s registered
trade mark, and no consent for its use was obtained, thus breaching Section
11(2)(a).
39. For the same reasons, the Respondent’s name is confusingly similar to a well -
known trade mark, contrary to Section 11(2)(b).
40. Pursuant to Section 11(2)(c)(i) of the Act, a name must not falsely imply an association
with another. Given, given the substantial reputation of the ALTRON mark in
South Africa, the Respondent’s name would likely mislead the public into
incorrectly believing there is an association between the two entities, which is
expressly prohibited by Section 11(2)(c).
Page 11 of 13
41. The evidence presented to the Tribunal robustly supports the well-known status
of the ALTRON mark. Since 1965, it has been extensively used across a wide
range of technology and related industries, supported by significant
commercial turnover, sustained marketing efforts, and prominent media
coverage. The mark clearly qualifies for protection as a well -known trade mark.
Its unauthorised incorporation into the Respondent’s company name unfairly
exploits its distinctive character and reputation, which is inherently detrimental
to the Applicant.
42. The Applicant faces both immediate and tangible prejudice as a result of the
Respondent’s conduct. There is a genuine risk of reputational and commercial
harm, as the Applicant has no control over the Respondent’s activities, which
may nonetheless be attributed to the Applicant by a confused public. The
similarity between the names creates a strong likelihood of confusion, brand
dilution, and unwarranted association, directly undermining the Applicant’s
brand integrity and exclusive intellectual property rights.
THE TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS
43. The Applicant established that it has good cause for the application , and
demonstrated a clear interest in the first Respondent’s name.
44. The Respondent’s name is confusingly similar to the Applicant’s registered and
well-known trade mark in contravention of Sections 11(2)(a), (b), and (c), of the
Act.
ORDER
Page 12 of 13
45. Having considered the application and founding affidavit filed by the Applicant,
and no answering affidavit having been filed by the First Respondent, it is
ordered:
45.1. The name ALTRON MOTIVES (PTY) LTD (Registration Number:
2024/054126/07) does not satisfy the requirements of Section 11(2) of the
Companies Act, 71 of 2008.
45.2. The First Respondent is directed to change its name to one which does
not incorporate the word “ALTRON” and which is not confusingly and/or
deceptively similar to the Applicant’s ALTRON trade mark, within 60 (sixty)
calendar days from the date of this order.
45.3. Should the First Respondent fail to comply with paragraph 45.1 above
within the stipulated 60 days, the Second Respondent is authorised and
directed, in terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii) read with Section 142 of the
Companies Act, to:
45.3.1. Change the First Respondent’s name on the Companies Register
to its registration number: “2024/054126/07 (Pty) Ltd”; and
45.3.2. Issue a Notice of Amendment of the company’s registration
certificate reflecting the new name.
45.4. The First Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this application, as
the Applicant took all reasonable steps to resolve the matter prior to
instituting these proceedings.
45.5. The Tribunal’s Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this order on the
First and Second Respondents.
Dated at Johannesburg on the 5
th day of January 2026.
Page 13 of 13
D. TERBLANCHE
MEMBER OF THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL
5 January 2026