Page 1 of 12
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT PRETORIA
Case number: CT02424ADJ2025
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC. APPLICANT
and
UNPLUGGED (PTY) LTD. 1
ST RESPONDENT
(Registration number: 2024/153872/07)
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL 2ND RESPONDENT
PROPERTY COMMISSION
Tribunal member: D Terblanche
Date of Decision: 2 February 2026
DECISION (REASONS AND ORDER)
THE PARTIES
1. The Applicant is VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation with its
registered address at 1515 Broadway, New York, 10036- 5794, United States of
America.
2. The First Respondent, UNPLUGGED (PTY) LTD, is a company incorporated and
registered in the Republic of South Africa with registration number 2024/153872/07,
Page 2 of 12
and with a registered address recorded as being 31O Waterbury Court, Blenheim Road,
Plumstead, Cape Town, Wester Cape.
3. The Second Respondent is the Commissioner of Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission appointed in terms of Section 189 of the Companies Act, who is cited in
his official capacity as the person responsible for the function of the Commission
established in terms of the Companies Act. No order for costs is sought against the
Second Respondent, save in the event that he should oppose this application.
THE APPLICATION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
4. This is an application in terms of Section 160 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 ("the
Companies Act") for a determination and an order that the name of the First
Respondent, Unplugged (Pty) Ltd (registration number 2024/15372/07), does not
satisfy the requirements of Sections 11 (2)(a)(iii), 11 (2)(b) and 11(2)(c)(i) of the
Companies Act, and that the First Respondent should be directed to change its name, as
provided for in Section 160 of the Companies Act , and in particular S ection
160(3)(b)(ii) thereof.
5. The Applicant filed the application in terms of section 160 read with Regulation 142 by
way of filing Form CTR142 on with the Tribunal on 7 October 2025.
6. The Applicant had to and according to the Applicant’s submissions, indeed served the
application and its supporting documentation on the Respondents within 5 days of
filing the application with the Tribunal, namely, by 14 October 2025.
7. The Applicant electronically served the main application and supporting documents to
the Respondents on 7 October 2025. Proof of the service email was attached to the
Applicant’s default order application. Additionally, an annexure included with the
application shows that the Deputy Sheriff served the application and documents on the
First Respondent by affixing them to the First Respondent’s main gate.
8. In terms of Regulation 143 of the Company Regulations the Respondents had until 4
8. In terms of Regulation 143 of the Company Regulations the Respondents had until 4
November 2025 to file and serve their respective answers to the main application. This
Page 3 of 12
deadline have lapsed without the Respondents having filed answers to the main
application.
THE APPLICANT AND ITS RIGHTS
9. The submissions regarding the Applicant and its rights appear from the founding
affidavit the Applicant filed in support of its main application.
10. The Applicant owns the UNPLUGGED trademark in multiple countries, including
South Africa. Notably, the Applicant holds registration no. 1994/14010 in class 09 for
various scientific and electronic apparatus, and registration no. 1994/14011 in class 41
for education, entertainment, and related services. The Applicant attached e xtracts from
ClPC's online records confirming the details of the Applicant's aforementioned trade
mark registrations, which have both been timeously renewed over the years as required.
11. The statutory trade mark rights arising from registration of the UNPLUGGED trade
mark are valid, enforceable, and predate the date of incorporation of the First
Respondent (being 7 March 2024) by at least 30 years.
12. The Applicant's registration of the UNPLUGGED trade mark affords it statutory
protection against third parties which may make use of or seek to acquire rights in an
identical or confusingly similar name, or trade mark, in conflict with its rights.
13. ln addition to its statutory trade mark rights acquired through registration, the Applicant
has acquired rights at common law to protect its UNPLUGGED trade mark, through the
substantial reputation and goodwill it has built up in it through use of its trade mark for
many decades.
14. The Applicant is a global entertainment and mass media conglomerate. The Applicant
provides a variety of entertainment content to its viewers worldwide through television,
digital media, streaming services and motion pictures, and is one of the largest and best
known entertainment media companies in the world.
Page 4 of 12
15. The Applicant's UNPLUGGED television series debuted on MTV in 1989, at a time
when MTV was widely recognized for music programming. The show featured live
acoustic performances from prominent artists such as Elton John, Aerosmith, Eric
Clapton, Nirvana, Mariah Carey, Rod Stewart, and others, with over 101 episodes
aired.
16. Many performers released their UNPLUGGED sessions as albums, including Eric
Clapton, Mariah Carey, and Nirvana; these achieved major commercial success. For
instance, Clapton's 'Unplugged' sold 26 million copies globally and became the best-
selling live album ever.
17. The series earned three Emmy nominations for technical and artistic excellence and
maintained popularity worldwide, reaching 387 million households in 2015—MTV was
especially popular among young viewers in South Africa via DSTV. Evidence of
MTV's reach can be found here.
18. Episodes remain available on Paramount+. Due to longstanding, consistent use and
licensed collaborations, the Applicant has developed substantial common law and
registered rights in the UNPLUGGED trademark.
19. The Applicant therefore submitted that the trade mark UNPLUGGED has become
closely and exclusively associated with the Applicant in this country, beyond any
dictionary meaning of the word. It has, in fact, acquired a secondary meaning and
become distinctive of the Applicant and its Licensees' goods and services.
GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
20. The Applicant has an interest in the name of the First Respondent for the purpose of
The First Respondent was incorporated on 7 March 2024. The Applicant
discovered the infringing name in June 2024 during a routine trawl of the CIPC
records, as the Respondent had no online presence to facilitate earlier
discovery. In an attempt to resolve the matter amicably, the Applicant’s
attorneys sent multiple letters of demand via email to the Respondent’s director
Page 5 of 12
on 2 July, 26 July, and 21 August 2024, calling for the company to change its
name. The First Respondent has ignored all correspondence and has taken no
steps to comply.
21. The continued registration of the offending name causes significant prejudice. It
deceives the public by implying an association with the Applicant, thereby
risking irreparable reputational harm if the Respondent provides poor quality
goods or services. This unauthorised use unfairly dilutes the distinctive
character and goodwill of the Applicant’s well -known UNPLUGGED trademark
and constitutes trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act.
22. The Applicant filed the objection under Section 160(1) of the Companies Act which
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."
23. Section 160 of the Companies Act, as the First Respondent's name wholly incorporates
and is phonetically and conceptually identical to the Applicant's well -known and prior
registered UNPLUGGED trade mark, in which the Applicant has a major and direct
commercial interest.
24. Section 160(2)(b) provides that:
"An application in terms of subsection (1) may be made:
(b) 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, in any other case"
25. Section 11(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Companies Act provides that:
Page 6 of 12
"The name of a company must –
(a) not be 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, 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
(b) not be confusingly similar to a name, trade mark, mark, word or expression
contemplated in paragraph (a) unless,
(i) 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;
(ii) in the case of a company name similar to a defensive name or to
a business name referred to in paragraph (a)(ii), the company,
or a person who controls the company, is the registered owner
of that defensive name or business name;
(iii) 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
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 use of that mark, word 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...";
26. The rights in and to the well-known UNPLUGGED trade mark are also infringed by the
unauthorised use of a trade mark or name that is identical or similar to a prior registered
Page 7 of 12
well-known trade mark, for any goods or services - notwithstanding any possible
absence of confusion or deception.
27. The First Respondent's company name, comprising only the word UNPLUGGED, is
visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to the Applicant's well known and
prior registered UNPLUGGED trade mark. There are no additional distinguishing
factors included in the First Respondent's company name to even attempt to distinguish
the First Respondent from the well-known UNPLUGGED series of the Applicant.
28. The First Respondent's name is likely to be understood to refer the Applicant's series,
and/or be associated with the Applicant or the companies within the Paramount Group,
or one of its licensees.
29. The First Respondent is not in any way connected to the Applicant, and it is not
authorised by the Applicant to use the UNPLUGGED trade mark.
30. The First Respondent's company name is deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the
Applicant's registered and well- known UNPLUGGED trade mark, if not identical to it.
The name directly offends against the provisions of Sections 112(a)(iii) and 11(2)(b) of
the Companies Act.
31. ln addition, given the reputation in and to the well -known UNPLUGGED trade mark,
the First Respondent's name "falsely implies, suggests, or would reasonably mislead
consumers" that the company is part of the same group of companies as the Applicant,
associated with it, or licensed by the Applicant, when it is not, because of its
confusingly and/or deceptively similar (in fact, identical) name. I respectfully submit
that the First Respondent's name therefore offends against the provisions of Section
11(2)(c)(i) of the Companies Act too.
32. Furthermore, all use by the First Respondent of its name amounts to trade mark
infringement in terms of Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993, on the same
basis, and the Applicant is entitled to seek interdictory relief, a change of name order,
basis, and the Applicant is entitled to seek interdictory relief, a change of name order,
and other relief from the High Court in respect of that use.
Page 8 of 12
THE RELIEF THE APPLICANT SEEKS
33. The Applicant therefore requests an order from the Tribunal:
33.1. directing the First Respondent to change its name to one that does not contain the
trade mark UNPLUGGED or any other word or phrase which is confusingly
and/or deceptively similar to the UNPLUGGED trade marks;
33.2. in the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with the order set out in
paragraph (a) above within 2 weeks from the date of the order, that the Second
Respondent be directed, in terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii) read with Section 14(2)
of the Companies Act, to change the First Respondent's name to its company
registration number being "2024/ 15 3872/07", as the First Respondent's new
company name on the companies register;
33.3. costs in the Applicant's favour in the event that the First Respondent opposes this
application; and
33.4. granting the Applicant further and/or alternative relief.
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
34. The Applicant, Viacom International Inc., seeks a default order under Section
160 of the Companies Act, 2008, for the First Respondent, Unplugged (Pty) Ltd,
to change its name. The application is founded on the contention that the
name contravenes Sections 11(2)(a)(iii), 11(2)(b), and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Act.
35. The application is procedurally sound. It was filed on 7 October 2025 and
properly served on both Respondents within the prescribed period —
electronically and via affixing to the First Respondent’s registered address by
the Deputy Sheriff. The Respondents' deadline to answer (4 November 2025)
has lapsed without any response. The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section
160, and the Respondents are in default, entitling the Applicant to a default
Page 9 of 12
order under Regulation 153. The Applicant has a direct interest in the name
under Section 160(1), as its registered trademark is wholly incorporated.
36. The uncontested evidence establishes a compelling case that the Respondent’s
name contravenes the Act.
37. The Applicant holds valid South African trademark registrations
for UNPLUGGED in Classes 9 and 41 dating to 1994. These statutory rights are
enforceable and predate the First Respondent’s incorporation (7 March 2024)
by 30 years. Beyond registration, the Applicant has established the mark as
well-known through its globally renowned MTV Unplugged television series,
first aired in 1989 and broadcast for decades in South Africa to a substantial
viewership. The series’ critical acclaim, commercial success (including multi-
platinum albums), and cultural impact have imbued “UNPLUGGED” with a
secondary meaning and significant goodwill, establishing it as a well -known
trademark and granting the Applicant common law rights.
38. The First Respondent’s name, “Unplugged (Pty) Ltd,” is identical to the
Applicant’s registered and well-known trademark. There are no distinguishing
words. This direct identity constitutes a contravention of Section
11(2)(a)(iii) and, at minimum, establishes confusing similarity under Section
11(2)(b).
39. The use of an identical name to a famous entertainment trademark falsely
implies or suggests a commercial association, endorsement, or licensing
relationship with the Applicant or its corporate group. This is reasonably likely
to mislead the public into believing the Respondent is connected to the
Applicant, contravening Section 11(2)(c)(i). Such confusion exposes the
Applicant to reputational harm from activities outside its control.
Page 10 of 12
40. The Applicant confirms it has no connection with and has not authorised the
Respondent. The Respondent’s conduct in ignoring pre -litigation demands
reinforces its lack of legitimate interest. The registration deceives the public,
dilutes the distinctive character of the well -known mark, and likely constitutes
trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act.
41. The Applicant has presented a thorough, well -documented, and wholly
uncontested case. The Respondent has abandoned its right to defend the
application. The procedural requirements for a default order are met, and the
substantive legal tests under Section 11(2) are decisively satisfied on the
unchallenged facts.
FINDINGS
42. The Tribunal finds that:
42.1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction. The application complies with prescribed
formalities. The First Respondent is in default as contemplated by
Regulation 153 of the Companies Regulations, 2011.
42.2. The Applicant has a direct and substantial interest in the name of the First
Respondent for the purpose of Section 160 of the Companies Act,.
42.3. The company name “Unplugged (Pty) Ltd” (Registration Number:
2024/153872/07) contravenes Sections 11(2)(a)(iii), 11(2)(b), and
11(2)(c)(i) of the Companies Act. It is identical or confusingly similar to the
Applicant’s prior registered and well-known trademark and falsely implies
an association with the Applicant.
42.4. The Applicant is entitled to the default order sought.
ORDER
Page 11 of 12
43. The Tribunal makes the following order:
43.1. The application for a default order in terms of Regulation 153 is GRANTED.
43.2. It is hereby determined that the company name “Unplugged (Pty) Ltd”
(Registration Number: 2024/153872/07) does not satisfy the requirements
of Section 11(2) of the Companies Act, 2008.
43.3. The First Respondent is directed, in terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii) , to
change its name to one which does not incorporate the
trademark “UNPLUGGED” and is not confusingly or deceptively similar to
it.
43.4. The First Respondent is ordered to file the necessary notice of amendment
with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) to effect
this change within 60 (sixty) calendar days from the date of this order.
43.5. Should the First Respondent fail to comply with paragraph 4 of this order
within the stipulated 60- day period, the Second Respondent (the
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission) is hereby directed, in
terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act read with Regulation
153(5), to:
43.5.1. Change the First Respondent’s name on the companies register to
its registration number, “2024/153872/07 (Pty) Ltd”, as its interim
corporate name.
43.5.2. Issue a corrected certificate of incorporation reflecting the interim
name.
43.6. There is no order as to costs.
Dated at Johannesburg on the 2
nd day of February 2026.
Page 12 of 12
D Terblanche
Tribunal Member