1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: CT02342ADJ2025
In the matter between:
INVESTEC BANK LIMITED Applicant
and
TRAVIS INVEST TECH (PTY) LTD First Respondent
COMMISSIONER OF THE COMPANIES AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION
Second Respondent
Presiding member:
Date of decision:
Richard Bradstreet
7 January 2026
DECISION (Reasons and Order)
1. The Appli cant is Investec Bank Limited, a company duly incorporated and
registered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa, with registration
number 1969/004763/06 and having its registered place of business recorded
as 100 Grayston Drive, Sandown, Sandton, 2196. The Applicant is a well -
established financial services institution and the proprietor of numerous
registered trade marks incorporating or comprising the mark INVESTEC,
including marks registered in South Africa in multiple classes.
2
2. The First Respondent is Travis Invest Tech (Pty) Ltd, a South African
company with registration number 2024/125485/07 and having its registered
address at 2 Merchant Street, Klapmuts, Stellenbosch, Western Cape.
3. The Second Respondent is the Commissioner of the Companies and
Intellectual Property Commission appointed in terms of section 189 of the
Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“Companies Act”).
4. This application is brought:
4.1. in terms of section 160(1) of the Companies Act, seeking a
determination and an order that the First Respondent’s name does not
satisfy the requirements of section 11 of the Act, and that the First
Respondent should be directed to change its name.
4.2. in terms of regulation 153 of the Companies Regulations, to be
determined by default, the First Respondent not having filed a
response.
BACKGROUND
5. The Applicant became aware of the registration of the First Respondent during
2025. Upon doing so, it addressed correspondence to the First Respondent
asserting its rights in the INVESTEC trade mark and calling upon the First
Respondent to change its name voluntarily. Despite further correspondence
and follow-up, the First Respondent did not respond and did not take steps to
change its name.
6. The Applicant thereafter lodged the present application for relief with the
Tribunal. The application, together with the founding affidavit, was served on
the First Respondent in accordance with the Regulations.
3
7. The First Respondent was afforded the prescribed period within which to file
an answering affidavit. That period has elapsed and no response has been
filed. The Applicant has accordingly applied for a default order. The
procedural requirements for such an order have been satisfied.
RELEVANT LAW
8. Section 160(1) permits any person with an interest in the name of a company
to apply to the Tribunal for a determination whether the name satisfies the
requirements of the Act.
9. The Companies Act requires that a company’s name must:
9.1. “not be the same as . . . the name of another company . . . [or] 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, 1993 (Act 194 of
1993), unless the registered owner of that mark has consented in
writing to the use of the mark as the name of the company” (section
11(2)(a)(i) and (iii));
9.2. “not be confusingly similar to a name, trade mark, mark, word or
expression contemplated in paragraph (a) [above] unless –
9.2.1. in the case of names referred to in paragraph (a) (i), each
company bearing any such similar name is a member of the
same group of companies; [or]
9.2.2. in the case of a name similar to a trade mark or mark referred
to in paragraph (a) (iii), the company is the registered owner of
4
the business name, trade mark, or mark, or is authorised by
the registered owner to use it” (section 11(2)(b));
9.3. “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” (section 11(2)(c)).
10. “Similar” in section 11(2)( b) means “having a marked resemblance or
likeness”, and that the offending name should immediately bring to mind the
well-known trade mark or other name ( Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC 2001 (1)
SA 844 (SCA)).
11. The meaning of “confusingly similar” must be determined with reference to the
test used for passing- off – namely: “... a reasonable likelihood that ordinary
members of the public, or a substantial section thereof, may be confused or
deceived into believing that the goods or merchandise of the former are the
goods or merchandise of the latter or are connected therewith. Whether there
is such a reasonable likelihood of confusion or deception is a question of fact
to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case” ( Adidas
AG & another v Pepkor Retail Limited (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3 (28 February
2013) para 28; Capital Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd and Others v
Holiday Inns Inc. and Others 1977 (2) SA 916 (A) at 929).
12. The similarity in this regard must be such that it would confuse the “ordinary
reasonable careful man, i.e. not the very careful man nor the very careless
man” (Link Estates (Pty) Ltd v Rink Estates (Pty) Ltd 1979 (2) SA 276 (E) at
280). Moreover, “the class of persons who are likely to be the purchasers of
the goods in question must be taken into account in determining whether there
5
is a likelihood of confusion or deception” (Reckitt & Colman SA (Pty) Ltd v SC
Johnson & Son SA (Pty) Ltd 1993 (2) SA 307 (A) at 315F-G).
13. Any person with an interest in the name of a company is, in terms of section
160(1) of the Act, entitled to bring an application to the Companies Tribunal (in
the prescribed manner) for determination of whether the name satisfies the
requirements of section 11 of the Companies Act.
14. Such application may be made “on good cause shown at any time after the
date of the reservation or registration of the name that is the subject of the
application” (section 160(2)).
15. The Companies Tribunal, after considering such application (“and any
submissions by the applicant and any other person with an interest in the
proposed name that is the subject of the application”):
15.1. “must make a determination whether that name, or the reservation,
registration or use of the name, or the transfer of the reservation or
registration of the name, satisfies the requirements of [the] Act” (section
160(3)(a)), and
15.2. “may make an administrative order directing . . . a company to choose
a new name, and to file a notice of an amendment to its Memorandum
of Incorporation, within a period and on any conditions that the Tribunal
considers just, equitable and expedient in the circumstances” (section
160(3)(b)(ii)).
16. In relation to default applications,
16.1. “[i]f a person served with an initiating document has not filed a
response within the prescribed period, the initiating party may apply to
6
have the order, as applied for, issued against that person by the
Tribunal” (regulation 153(1)), and
16.2. on such application, “the Tribunal may make an appropriate order – (a)
after it has heard any required evidence concerning the motion; and (b)
if it is satisfied that the notice or application was adequately served”
(regulation 153(2)).
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
17. The issues for determination are:
17.1. whether the Applicant has established standing and good cause to
bring the application in terms of section 160 of the Act;
17.2. whether the name Travis Invest Tech (Pty) Ltd satisfies the
requirements of section 11 of the Act; and
17.3. if not, what relief is appropriate under section 160(3).
Standing and Good Cause
18. The Applicant is the proprietor of numerous registered trade marks
incorporating the mark INVESTEC, many of which long predate the
incorporation of the First Respondent.
19. The Applicant has placed extensive evidence before the Tribunal
demonstrating the longstanding and substantial reputation attaching to the
INVESTEC mark, both internationally and in South Africa.
20. The Applicant therefore plainly has a direct and substantial interest in the
name of the First Respondent for purposes of section 160(1).
7
21. The Applicant has further explained the steps taken to resolve the matter
without recourse to litigation and the absence of any response from the First
Respondent. In these circumstances, the requirement of good cause has been
satisfied.
Confusing Similarity / Misleading Association
22. Phonetically, visually, and conceptually, “Invest Tech” bears a strong
resemblance to INVESTEC. The similarity is accentuated by the fact that the
Applicant operates in the financial and investment sector, which is precisely
the field suggested by the First Respondent’s name.
23. The Applicant’s evidence establishes that INVESTEC is a highly distinctive
and well-known trade mark. Where a mark has acquired such a reputation, a
lesser degree of similarity would be required to give rise to confusion or
deception.
24. Wallis JA has helpfully described the value judgement involved in determining
the likelihood of deception or confusion in the Supreme Court of Appeal’s
decision in Yuppichef Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Yuppie Gadgets Holdings (Pty) Ltd
2016 BIP 269 (SCA) at para 26:
“What is required is a value judgment on the question of the likelihood of deception or
confusion based on a global appreciation of the two marks and the overall impression that
they leave in the context of the underlying purpose of a trademark, which is that it is a badge
of origin. The value judgment is largely a matter of first impression and there should not be
undue peering at the two marks to find similarities and differences. It is nonetheless not
sufficient for judges merely to say that their impression is that the alleged infringing mark is, or
is not, likely to deceive or cause confusion. There is an obligation to explain why the judge
holds that view.”
25. When the First Respondent’s name is considered as a whole, the similarity
between the words “Invest Tech” and the Applicant’s trade mark is
8
immediately apparent. The addition of the word “Travis” does not detract from
the high degree of similarity in this regard. When hearing the name in
particular, “Invest Tech” would likely in most cases be the dominant and
memorable portion of the name – particularly given that the “INVESTEC” mark
is widely known.
26. In the absence of any explanation from the First Respondent, there is no basis
to conclude that the adoption of the name was coincidental or that it would not
give rise to a likelihood of confusion.
27. In my view, and bearing in mind the established approach reflected in all the
cases referred to above, members of the public encountering the name Travis
Invest Tech (Pty) Ltd are likely to assume that the company is connected with,
endorsed by, or otherwise associated with the Applicant. The name therefore
contravenes section 11(2)(b) and (c) of the Act.
Default Relief
28. The First Respondent has elected not to oppose the application and has not
placed any facts before the Tribunal that might justify a different conclusion.
29. The Applicant has established its entitlement to the relief sought on a balance
of probabilities. It is therefore appropriate to grant a default order in terms of
regulation 153.
ORDER
30. In the result, the following order is made:
(a) The name Travis Invest Tech (Pty) Ltd does not satisfy the requirements
of section 11 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
9
(b) The First Respondent is directed to change its name to one which does
not incorporate the words “Invest Tech” and which is not confusingly
similar to the Applicant’s INVESTEC trade mark, within one (1) month
from the date of this decision.
(c) In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with paragraph (b) ,
the Second Respondent is directed to record its registration number as
the First Respondent interim name on the companies register.
(d) The Tribunal’s R ecording Officer (Registrar) is directed to serve this
order on both parties.
__________________________
Richard Bradstreet
Member of the Companies Tribunal
7 January 2026