1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no. CT02505ADJ2025
In the matter between:
ANBIN GOVENDER Applicant
and
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION Respondent
Presiding member:
Date of decision:
Nomagcisa Cawe
22 February 2026
DECISION (Reasons and Order)
1. This is an application in terms of section 12(3)( b), read with section 160 of
the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“ the Act ”) for relief following the refusal by
the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (“ Commission”) to
reserve the name “AUXILIUM TECHNOLOGIES PTY” as a defensive name.
The Companies Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) is required to determine whether the
refusal reflected in the Commission’s notice was justified on the grounds
stated therein.
2. On 27 November 2025, the Commission issued a COR 95 notice (reference
number 9448493963) refusing to reserve the Applicant’s proposed name
2
“AUXILIUM TECHNOLOGIES PTY” , as it incorporates the suffix “Pty ”. The
present application was subsequently filed on 03 December 2025. As the
Commission has not delivered any notice of opposition, the matter proceeds as
an unopposed application in terms of Regulation 153 of the Companies
Regulations.
3. The CTR142 initiating document correctly indicates that Mr . Govender brings the
application in his personal capa city as the promoter of the proposed company
and the person seeking the reservation of a defensive name in anticipation of its
incorporation.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
4. Applicant applied for the reservation of four names: AUXILIUM
TECHNOLOGIES PTY, JAN TECHNOLOGIES, OHANA TECHNOLOGIES and IT
MATTERS. Only IT MATTERS was rejected outright as it was similar to another
registered name or mark, while the other three were indicated as clear or
acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with applicable provisions of the
Companies Act and the CIPC name- reservation guidelines. AUXILIUM
TECHNOLOGIES PTY was rejected for incorporating the suffix “Pty”, which is not
permitted at the name-reservation stage.
5. Applicant request the Tribunal to set aside the CIPC’s decision not to register
AUXILIUM TECHNOLOGIES, and order that the CIPC reserve the name without
the suffix “Pty”
RELEVANT LAW
6. Section 12(1) of the Act, dealing specifically with the reservation of company
names, and defensive names, provides that:
“A person may reserve one or more names to be used at a later time, either for a newly
incorporated company, or as an amendment to the name of an existing company, by filing an
application together with the prescribed fee.”
3
7. Section 12(2) then provides that the Commission must reserve “each name as
applied for” in the name of the applicant, unless certain specific circumstances
exist – namely: (a) the applicant is prohibited from using the name because it
does not meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a); or (b) the name as applied for
is already reserved defensively (in terms of section 12 of the Act).
8. Section 160(1) of the Act provides for a person to whom a notice is delivered in
terms of this Act with respect to an application for reservation of a name or
defensive name to apply to the Tribunal for a determination whether the name, or
the reservation of the name satisfies the requirements of the Act.
9. Such application to the Tribunal may be brought either within three months of
receiving a notice of name reservation or registration, or where no such notice
was received, at any time thereafter, on good cause shown. Upon considering
such an application, together with any submissions from the applicant or any
interested party, the Tribunal is required to determine whether the name in
question, or its reservation, registration, use, or transfer, complies with the
requirements of the Act. The central inquiry is thus whether the name satisfies
the substantive provisions of the Act.
10. The above sections do not apply to the instant matter as it has nothing to do with
similar names or the request for the Tribunal to change the name of the Company
to one that is not confusingly similar to it. The instant application deals with non-
compliance with the CIPC’s registration guidelines.
ANALYSIS
11. The CIPC refused the reservation of the name AUXILIUM TECHNOLOGIES
PTY as this was in conflict with Section 11(3) in that it incorporates the suffix Pty.
The CoR 9.5 sent to the Applicant by the CIPC states that: “ We regret to inform
you that no name has been reserved for your use for the following reason/ s):
you that no name has been reserved for your use for the following reason/ s):
Suffix (Pty), Ltd, Inc, Incorporated, RF, Limited, CC, Bk, Co, NPC, Co -op, co-
operative company etc are not allowed during the name- reservation in terms of
section 11(3) of the Act”.
4
12. On 22 April 2025 the CIPC placed a moratorium on the inclusion of suffixes at
the name- reservation stage, as stated in its CoR 95 to the Applicant. This
means any application, as in the present case, that flouts this guideline is
flawed and stands to be refused.
13. I am convinced that the Respondent was well within its rights to refuse the
AUXILIUM TECHNOLOGIES PTY name -reservation as it did not comply with
the Respondent’s guidelines. In light of the aforegoing I find that Respondent
did not err in refusing the Applicant’s name- reservation at it contained the
suffix “Pty”.
14. There is no provision in the Act, as prayed for by the Applicant that allows the
Tribunal to order the CIPC to register a name reservation that is flawed. In
View of this the application stands to fail.
ORDER
15. I, therefore, make the following order:
13.1 The application is dismissed
13.2 The Applicant is advised, should he so wish, to apply directly to the CIPC
following the guidelines on name-reservation.
16. No order is made as to costs as the matter was unopposed.
______________________
Nomagcisa Cawe
Member of the Companies Tribunal