Page 1 of 15
COMPANIES TRIBUNAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO. CT02522ADJ2025
In the matter between;
SUN INTERNATIONAL (SOUTH AFRICA) LIMITED Applicant
and
SUN CITY SHOP (PTY) LIMITED First Respondent
(2024/779898/07)
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Second Respondent
COMMISSION
Tribunal Member: DR Terblanche
Date: 10 February 2026
Decision (Reasons and Order)
THE PARTIES
1. The Applicant is Sun International (South Africa) Limited, a South African
company incorporated in accordance with the laws of South Africa, with its
registered address at 6 Sandown Valley Crescent, Sandown, Sandton, 2146,
Gauteng.
2. The First Respondent is SUN CITY SHOP (Pty) Limited, a company
incorporated in terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, registration no.
2024/779898/07, with its registered address at 15 Hough Street, Roodezand,
Western Cape, 6820, South Africa.
Page 2 of 15
3. The Second Respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission, established by the Companies Act 71 of 2008, as a juristic
person to function as an organ of state.
THE APPLICATION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
4. This is a n application under Regulation 153(1) and Regulation 153(2)(b) of
the Companies Regulations 2011. The Applicant requests an order,
according to Section 160(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 ("the Act"),
stating that the name Sun City Shop (Pty) Limited does not meet the
requirements set out in Sections 11(2)(a), 11(2)(b), and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Act.
The Applicant further asks that the First Respondent be instructed to select a
new name as specified in Section 160(3)(b)(ii) of the Act.
5. BRETT MARK HOPPE, general manager of the Applicant, submitted the
affidavit supporting the Main Application, while NICOLE YVONNE
SMALBERGER, from the Applicant’s attorneys, provided the affidavit for the
default application.
6. On 9 December 2025, the Applicant filed its application for relief in terms of
Section 160 of the Act. The Tribunal processed and allocated a case
number to the matter on 11 December 2025.
7. In terms of Regulation 142(2) of the Companies Regulations, the Applicant
was then required to serve a copy of the Main Application on the
Respondents within five (5) days.
8. On 15 December 2025, the Deputy Sheriff of the High Court served a copy
of the Main Application at the registered address of the First Respondent,
being, 15 Hough Street, Roodezand, Western Cape, 6820, South Africa. The
Main Application was also served on the First Respondent electronically, on
Page 3 of 15
11 December 2025. The Main Application was also sent to the Second
Respondent by e-mail on 11 December 2025.
9. The Applicant summitted that the application for relief was properly served
on the First and Second Respondents. The Applicant attached copies of
proof of service on the Respondents to its default order application.
10. In terms of Regulation 143 of the Companies Regulations, the First
Respondent had until 16 January 2026 to file and serve its answer to the
Main Application.
11. The Respondents have not submitted their opposition to the Main
Application. The Applicant therefore seeks a default order in accordance
with Regulation 153, given the Respondents failure to provide a response.
THE RELIEF THE APPLICANT SEEKS
12. The Applicant requests that the Tribunal grant a default order against the
First Respondent, in the following terms:
12.1 that the First Respondent's name does not comply with Sections
11(2)(a), 1 l(2)(b) and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Act;
12.2 that the First Respondent is directed, in terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii), to
choose a name which does not consist of, or incorporate, the words
SUN CITY, or any other mark which is confusingly and/or deceptively
similar to the Applicant's SUN CITY trade mark;
12.3 in the event that the First Respondent fails to change its name within 2
months 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
Act to change the First Respondent's name to 2024/779898/07 (Pty)
Limited, as the First Respondent's company name in the Companies
Register; and
Page 4 of 15
12.4 an order for the Applicant’s costs in terms of Regulation 156 of the Act.
THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
13. The Applicant’s submissions and arguments appear from the affidavits of
BRETT MARK HOPPE, general manager of the Applicant, and NICOLE
YVONNE SMALBERGER, from the Applicant’s attorneys.
ABOUT THE APPLICANT
14. Sun International Limited Group is a leading African tourism and leisure
company, operating renowned resorts, luxury hotels, and entertainment
venues in multiple countries, including South Africa.
15.
In the last 30 years, Sun International has invested over US$1.5 billion in
South African tourism infrastructure, employs about 6,500 people,
indirectly created 50,000 jobs, and impacts over 500,000 livelihoods in
southern Africa.
16. The Applicant owns the SUN CITY trademark in South Africa, first used in
1979 for its North -West province resort, which features five accommodation
options, seven bars, twenty-four restaurants/cafes, a vacation club, concert
venues, two golf courses, retail outlets, and a waterpark.
THE APPLICANT'S REGISTERED RIGHTS IN AND TO ITS SUN CITY TRADE MARK
17. The Applicant has registered its SUN CITY trade mark in a number of
classes in South Africa.
18. The Applicant's SUN CITY trade mark has been and is used by the Applicant
extensively on a day -to-day basis in relation to all its business activities,
Page 5 of 15
products and services and is extensively recognised worldwide and
across South Africa. As a result, it is an extremely well-known and iconic
brand in South Africa.
19. The Applicant has spent substantial amounts of money in the promotion
and
advertising of its SUN CITY trade mark over the years and has
consequently established a very strong reputation in its trade mark.
20. As a result of its extensive use, the Applicant has acquired a substantial
repute and strong common law rights in its SUN CITY trade mark, in addit ion
to its statutory rights.
21. Applicant's SUN CITY trade mark has become an asset of enormous
commercial value and importance to the Applicant. Any unauthorised
use of this trade mark, or of confusingly or deceptively similar marks, will
be damaging to the reputation and the business of the Applicant in
South Africa.
CORRESPONDENCE
22. The Applicant first became aware of the First Respondent's name in July
2025, following the discovery by the Applicant's attorneys that the First
Respondent had incorporated a company under th e name Sun City
Shop (Pty) Ltd. the Applicant’s attorneys promptly reported it to the
Applicant.
23. On 21 July 2025, the Applicant's attorneys issued and sent an email
containing a letter of demand to the First Respondent requesting the
First Respondent to voluntarily amend its company name to exclude
any mark resembling the Applicant’s
SUN CITY trademark, and to cease
all usage of the mark SUN CITY, or any confusingly similar mark, in the course
Page 6 of 15
of trade. The email enclosing the letter was addressed to the director's
email address appearing from the First Respondent ’s incorporation
documents.
24. No reply was received from the First Respondent. Consequently, the
Applicant’s attorneys attempted to contact the First Respondent
telephonically using the number listed for its director. Despite multiple
attempts, the calls remained unanswered; alternatively, when the
Applicant and the accompanying letter of demand concerning SUN CITY
SHOP (PTY) LIMITED were referenced, the First Respondent would terminate
the call.
25. At present, the First Respondent’s name remains unchanged and no
response has been forthcoming. Under these circumstances, the Applicant
has no alternative but to initiate a formal objection.
GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
26. In support of it objection the Applicant referenced various section of the
Act namely Section 160(1) 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 the Act.
27. The Applicant holds a substantial interest in the first respondent’s name for
purposes of section 160, given that the names involved are confusingly or
deceptively similar to the well- known and registered Sun City trademark, in
which the Applicant possesses significant and direct commercial interest.
Page 7 of 15
28. The Applant further referenced Sections 160(2)(b)and Section 11(2) of the
Act,
28.1 Section 160(2)(b) of the Act provides that -
“An application in terms of subsection (1) may be made:
(b) on growled on good cause Sean 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.”
28.2 Section 11 (2) of the Act provides that -
“(2) The name of a company must—
(a) not be the same as—
(i) the name of another company, domesticated
company, registered external company, close
corporation or co-operative;
(ii) a name registered for the use of a person, other than
the company itself or a person controlling the company,
as a defensive name in terms of section 12(9), or as a
business name in terms of the Business Names Act, 1960
(Act 27 of 1960), unless the registered user of that
defensive name or business name has executed the
necessary documents to transfer the registration in
favour of the company;
(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
Page 8 of 15
that mark has consented in writing to the use of the
mark as the name of the company; or
(iv) a mark, word or expression the use of which is restricted
or protected in terms of the Merchandise Marks Act,
1941 (Act 17 of 1941), except to the extent permitted by
or in terms of that Act;
[S 11(2)(a) substituted by s 6(c) of Act 3 of 2011.]
(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;
[S 11(2)(b) inserted by s 6(d) of Act 3 of 2011.]
(c) not falsely imply or suggest, or be such as would reasonably
mislead a person to believe incorrectly that the company—
Page 9 of 15
(i) is part of, or associated with, any other person or entity;
…”
30. The Applicant’s arguments that the First Respondent’s name contravenes
section11(2))of the Act appears immediately below.
31. The Applicant’s Sun City trademark, is wholly incorporated into the First
Respondent’s name, Sun City Shop (Pty) Ltd, serving as the dominant and
most distinctive element. The term “ Shop” does not differentiate the First
Respondent’s name from the Applicant ’s registered trademark, being
purely descriptive and non- distinctive. Considering the Applicant offers
various services including food, beverage and retail shops at the Sun City
resort, the addition of “shop”only increases the likelihood of public
confusion regarding the association between the First Respondent and the
Applicant.
32. The incorporation of the Sun City trademark in the First Respondent’s name
has not been sanctioned or authorized by the Applicant.
33. The First Respondent’s name is therefore identical or confusingly similar to
the Applicant’s registered Sun City trademark and thus contravenes the
provisions of section 11(2)(a)-(b) of the Act.
34. The inclusion of the word “Shop” implies an interest in goods and services for
which the Applicant's Sun City trademark is registered across various
classes.
35. Use of the First Respondent’s name in connection with services identical or
similar to those covered by the earlier Sun City trademark registration, and
for which the Applicant has used the trademark extensively, constitutes
Page 10 of 15
infringement under section 34(1)(b), or alternatively section 34(1)(c), of the
Trade Marks Act.
36. Section 11 of the Act does not require overlapping business interests for a
company name to be objectionable. The determining factor is whether the
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, without necessitating
analytical comparison of services. The similarity between “Sun City” and
“Sun City Shop” is readily apparent, with “shop” providing no distinctive
value. Public members are likely to assume association or endorsement by
the Applicant.
37. Use of the first respondent’s name in trade is likely to take unfair advantage
of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character and repute of the
Applicant's well- known Sun City trademark. Such use is likely to dilute the
Applicant’s trademark rights and constitutes infringement under section
34(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act.
38. Given the extensive reputation of the Applicant in the Sun City trademark,
use of the first respondent’s name in trade is liable to deceive or confuse
the public into believing there is a connection between the parties. In
particular, the public may believe that the first respondent is authorized to
render goods or services on behalf of the Applicant, or is an extension
thereof. This use also amounts to passing off under common law.
39. The First Respondent’s company name fails to comply with section 11(2)(c)
of the Act as it falsely implies association with the Applicant and is likely to
mislead the public.
40. In support of the Applicant’s claim that the Forst Respondent’s name
contravenes Section11 of the Act , the Applicant refers the Tribunal among
others, to –
Page 11 of 15
40.1 Hollywood Curl (Pty) Ltd v Twins Products (Pty) Ltd 1989 (1)SA 255 (A)
– the use of the mark Hollywood Curl by the Appellant on its
merchandise constituted passing off in that here was reasonable
likelihood that ordinary members the public might be confused or
deceived into believing that such merchandise emanates from the
Respondent. The Appellant was also trading under the name
Hollywood Curl.
40.2 American Chewing Products Corporation v American Chickle Co
1948 (2)(SA 736A where the court considered the various factors
when comparing names mindful that the comparison is not always
side-by-side and imperfect t recollection at a later stage resulting in
confusion and leads to in jury in the business . particularly since the
complainant has no control over the quality of the goods or services
by the other party.
41. In support of its request that the Tribunal directs the Second Respondent to
change the First Respondent’s name if the First Respondent fails to do so,
under the relevant sections of the Act, the Applicant cited a High Court
order (case no. 65895/2019) involving Comair Limited v Kulula South Africa
(Pty) Ltd & Others, the Applicant noted that the court allowed the
Commissioner of Companies to rename a company to its registration
number and confirmed that the Companies Tribunal can direct CIPC to do
so if a company fails to comply with such an order. The Applicant included
a copy of the 31 March 2022 order in their filing.
41.1
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Page 12 of 15
42. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter under Section 160 of the Companies
Act, 2008.
43. The Applicant, Sun International (South Africa) Limited, has established a direct and
substantial interest in the name of the First Respondent, as its well -known and
registered SUN CITY trademark constitutes the dominant and distinctive
component of the Respondent's corporate identity.
44. The application is procedurally sound. The Main Application was properly filed on 9
December 2025 and subsequently served on all Respondents in compliance with the
Companies Regulations. Service was effected electronically on the First and Second
Respondents on 11 December 2025, and physical service was completed at the First
Respondent's registered address by the Deputy Sheriff on 15 December 2025. The
First Respondent’s deadline to file an answering affidavit, 16 January 2026, has
passed without any response or request for an extension. Consequently, the
Respondents are in default, and the Applicant is entitled to seek a default order
under Regulation 153.
45. On the substantive merits, the Applicant presents an unopposed and compelling
case. It holds registered rights in the SUN CITY trademark across multiple classes in
South Africa. These rights are significantly bolstered by decades of continuous and
extensive use since 1979, substantial financial investment, and nationwide
promotional activity, cementing the mark's status as an iconic and well -known
brand. These established rights predate the First Respondent's 2024 incorporation
by many years.
46. The First Respondent’s name, "SUN CITY SHOP (PTY) LTD" , incorporates the
Applicant's trademark in its entirety as its dominant and memorable element. The
appended word "SHOP" is purely descriptive and non -distinctive; it does not serve
Page 13 of 15
to differentiate the Respondent from the Applicant but may, in fact, increase the
likelihood of confusion, given that the Applicant's resort complex operates
numerous retail outlets. Applying the established legal test, which considers the
impression on a consumer with an imperfect recollection, the names are confusingly
similar. This constitutes a contravention of Sections 11(2)(a)(iii) and 11(2)(b) of the
Act.
47. Furthermore, by appropriating this famous mark, the Respondent’s name falsely
implies or suggests a commercial association with the Applicant and its renowned
resort. This is reasonably likely to mislead the public into believing the Respondent
is authorized by or affiliated with the Sun International group, thereby contravening
Section 11(2)(c)(i) of the Act. The Applicant confirms it has not provided any
authorisation for this use, and the Respondent’s failure to engage with pre-litigation
correspondence underscores the absence of a legitimate claim to the name. The
continued registration and use of the name pose a clear risk of public deception,
dilution of the trademark’s distinctive character, and potential infringement of the
Applicant’s rights under the Trade Marks Act.
48. In evaluation, the Applicant has presented a clear, well -substantiated, and entirely
uncontested case. The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceedings
despite proper notice. The procedural requirements for a default order are fully
satisfied, and the substantive legal tests for a contravention of Section 11(2) are
decisively met on the unchallenged facts.
FINDINGS
49. Upon consideration of the application and the supporting affidavits, and noting the
First Respondent's default, the Tribunal finds as follows:
Page 14 of 15
49.1 The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter. The application complies with
all prescribed formalities. The Respondents are in default as contemplated by
Regulation 153 of the Companies Regulations, 2011.
49.2 The Applicant has a direct and substantial interest in the name of the First
Respondent for the purpose of Section 160 of the Act.
49.3 The company name "SUN CITY SHOP (PTY) LTD" (Registration Number:
2024/779898/07) contravenes Sections 11(2)(a)(iii), 11(2)(b), and 11(2)(c)(i) of
the Companies Act, 2008. It is confusingly similar to the Applicant’s prior
registered and well -known trademark and falsely implies an association with
the Applicant.
49.4 The Applicant is entitled to the default order it seeks
ORDER
50. The Tribunal makes the following order:
50.1 The application for a default order in terms of Regulation 153 is granted.
50.2 It is determined that the name "SUN CITY SHOP (PTY) LTD" (2024/779898/07)
does not satisfy Section 11(2) of the Companies Act, 2008. The name is
confusingly similar to the Applicant’s registered and well-known trademark and
falsely implies an association with the Applicant.
Page 15 of 15
50.3 The First Respondent is directed under Section 160(3)(b)(ii) of the Act to
change its name to one that excludes "SUN CITY" and is not confusingly similar
to it.
50.4 The First Respondent is required to file the necessary amendment with the
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) within 60 days of the
date of this order.
50.5 Should the First Respondent fail to comply, the Second Respondent (CIPC) is
directed, under Section 160(3)(b)(ii) read with Regulation 153(5), to change the
company's name to its registration number, " 2024/779898/07 (PTY) LTD", to
serve as the interim corporate name.
50.6 The First Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs in respect of this
application.
Dated at Johannesburg on the 10
th day of February 2026.
____________________________
D Terblanche
Tribunal Member