1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: CT/02573/ADJ/2026
In the matter between:
WORLDWIDE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP ENTRERPRISES
(PTY) LIMITED Applicant
And
GW TYRE REPAIR PTY) LIMITED 1
st Respondent
(Registration No: 2025/023234/07)
And
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION 2
nd Respondent
___________________________________________________________________
Presiding Member of the Companies Tribunal: HLALELENI KATHLEEN DLEPU
Date of Decision: 15 April 2026
DECISION and REASONS
2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The applicant is W orldwide Automotive Group Enterprise(P ty) Limited, a
company duly incorporated and regist ered in terms of the laws of the
Republic of South Africa with its registered address at Louwlardia Logistics
Park, Antila Lane, Louwlardia, Centurion, Gauteng (herein referred to as the
Applicant.) The Applicant is the proprietor of statutory and common law rights
in the well-known GW trademark.
1.2 The first respondent is GW Tyre Repair (Pty) Limited a company duly
incorporated in accordance with the company laws of the Republic of South
Africa with registration number 2025/023234/07 with its registered address at
154 Mjijwa Street, Zwide, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape 6201 These details
for the First Respondent are obtained from the online records of Companies
and Intellectual Property Commission(‘CPIC”)
1.3 The second respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission (CIPC) established by Section 189 of the Companies Act with its
address at DTI Building, Block F, Meintjies Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria.
2. THE APPLICATION
2.1. The Applicant brought this application brought in terms of Section 160 of the
Companies Act for an order as follows:
2.1.1. That the First Respondent ’s company name, G W Tyre Repairs (Pty)
Limited does not satisfy the requirements of Section 11(2) (a)(iii), 11(2)(b)
and 11(2)(c)(i)of the Companies Act.
2.1.2. That the First Respondent be directed to choose a new name, as provided
for in Section 160,and sub-section (3)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act.
2.1.3. In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with the Order asset
out in 2.1.1 within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of the order ,that
3
the Second Respondent be directed in terms of Section (160) (3) (b) read
with section 14(2) of the Companies A ct ,to change the First Respondent’ s
name to its company name being ‘’2025/023234/07” as the First
Respondent’s new company name on the companies register.
2.1.4. Costs Order in favour of the Applicant in terms of Regulation 156.
2.2. The Applicant has an interest in the name of the First Respondent within the
meaning of Section 160(1) of the Act to file this Application to the Companies
Act. The Applicant’s interest will appear from the facts which were initiated and
documented by the Applicant in its affidavit in particular the Applicants trademark
rights in and to the GW trademark.
2.3. In terms of Regulation 143 the first respondent had until the 27
th of February
2026 to serve and fille its answer to the Applicant’s Application, the deadline
passed and no answer was served. The Application was served by the Deputy
Sheriff of the High Court the 31st January 2026 at the register ed address of the
first respondent being Mjijwa Street, Zwide, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The
main Application was also served on the First Respondent elect ronically on the
29th of January 2026. The main Application was also served electronically on the
29th January 2026.
2.4. The first respondent had until the 27th February 2026 to file and serve its
response to the main application, and to date no response has been filed.
2.5. I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for the main application to
be considered by default against the First Respondent.
2.6. In support of this application the Applicant attached supporting affidavits for the
default judgement in the names of Nicole Yvonne Smal berger and the main
application the supporting affidavit of Mark Ernst William Wilh elm and Jolene
Louise Van Wyk setting out the facts upon which the Applicant relies on both
duly authorised by resolutions.
3. BACKGROUND
4
3.1. On the 6th October 2025 on becoming aware of the registration of the company
GW Tyre Repairs ( Pty) Limited ( 2025/023234/07) Applicant instructed its
Attorneys to address a letter of demand to the First Respondent informing it of
the Applicants rights under GW name and trademark.
3.2. On the 20 th of October 2025 the Applicants Attorneys further addressed a letter
granting an extension until the 24th of October 2025 to respond indicating that
should the respondent be unwilling to cooperate, the Applicant would not have
no option but to institute formal proceedings. . the Applicant’s Attorneys made
contact with the First Respondents Director, but their calls remained unanswered
by the Director.
3.3. The Applicant has made a concerted effort in attempting to contact the Director
of the Second Respondent and failure to respond to the letters of demand
justifies the Application being brought against the First Respondent.
3.4. The Applicant has an interest in the First Respondents name within the meaning
of section 160 of the Act as the name incorporates the Applicants mark GW In
terms of Section 29(b) of the Trademark Act 194 of 1993 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Trademarks Act”), the Applicant ‘s trademark rights are enforceable with
effect from the date of filing of its trademark application. In terms of Section 29
of the Trademark Act, that date shall be deemed to be the date of registration.
3.5. The Applicant is therefore, the proprietor of the trademark GW which was
registered long before the registration of the First Respondent in 1992 the
Applicants GW trademarks where registered as early as 2000. The reference of
the First Respondents name GW Tyre Repairs (Pty) Limited does not serve to
distinguish from the Applicants GW trademark.
3.6. The mark G W Tyre Repairs is visually and phonetically identical to the
Applicant’s registered trademark GW. Members of the public who encounter the
Applicant’s registered trademark GW. Members of the public who encounter the
First Respondent are likely to believe that the First Respondent is the Applicant
or associated with the Applicant. The Applicants proof of registration, copies of
the Applicant’s trademark associated with the certificates that were issued by
the Registrar of Trademarks were annexed to the Applicants affidavit. These
5
trademark registrations are valid and in force and will hereinafter be referred to
as the Applicants’ GW trademark registrations.
3.7. The Applicant s is the proprietor of the following trade marks in South Africa
effective from the 1st December 2000
3.7.1. Trade Mark GW Registration No 2000/23929 Class 1
3.7.2. Trade Mark GW Registration No 2000/23930 Class 35
3.7.3. Trade Mark GW Registration No 2000/23931 Class 36
3.7.4. Trade Mark GW Registration No 2016/33063 Class 09
3.8. As evidence of the above Trade Marks, the Applicant attached to their founding
affidavit a print out from the Register of Trade Marks .The above trademarks are
valid and in force. It is self -evident that the dominant element of the above
trademarks is “GW” and that the Applicant has rights in this element of its trade
marks.
4. APPLICABLE LAW
4.1. Section 160(1) of the companies 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”.
4.2. Section 160(2)(b) of the Companies Act provides that:
“An application in terms of Subsection (1) 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, in any other case”.
4.3. Sections 11(2) (a)(iii), 11 (2)(b)(iii); and 11(2)(c )(i) of the Companies Act, in as
far as they are applicable, read as follows:
“(2) The name of a company must
(a) not be the same as –
6
(i) …
(ii) …
(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 No. 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, trademark, mark, word, or
expression contemplated in paragraph (a) unless-
(i) …
(ii) …
(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, trademark, or is authorised by the registered owner
or to use it; or …
(c) not falsely imply or suggest, or be such as would reasonably
mislead a person to believe incorrectly, that the company – (i) is part of, or
associated with, any other person or entity…”
4.4. The question is whether the First Respondent’s name and the Applicant’s
trademark are confusingly similar as envisaged in Section 11(2)(b) (iii) read with
Section 11 (2)(a)(iii) of the Companies Act.
4.5. The Company operates a vast variety of computer software, magnetic data
carriers and other consumables including consultancy and scientific and
technical services, surveys an exploration its registered trademarks and name
are of exc lusive use by the Applicants and also protected under the common
law, and although the nature of the First Respondent’s Company is not known or
7
clear, the use of the Applicant’s name by the First Respondent is confusingly
similar to the Applicant’s name and trademarks . This elevates the risk of
confusion between the Applicant’s trademark and the First Respondent’s name,
products, and services in the marketplace.
4.6. I further agree the confusion and/or deception, can lead to injury to the
Applicant’s business. This is particularly so when it is taken into account that the
Applicant has absolutely no control whatsoever on the quality and type of goods
sold and services rendered by the Company.
4.7. The visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities between the First Respondent’s
name and the Applicant’s trademark may mislead or confuse others into
believing that there is some authorised connection and/or association in the
course of trade between the products and/or services offered by the First
Respondent with those of the Applicant, when, from the evidence before me,
that it not the case.
4.8. In Plascon-Evans Paints (TVL) Ltd. V Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd.
(Plascon-Evans, CORBETT JA quoted MARGO J, delivering the judgment in
International Power Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Searles Industrials (Pty) Ltd. 1983(4)
SA 163 (T), as follows on the meaning of the words “as to be likely to deceive or
cause confusion”.
“the main legal principles relevant to the decision of the instant case may
be briefly summarised as follows:-
In an infringement action the onus is on the plaintiff to show the probability
or likelihood of deception or confusion.... it is enough for the plaintiff to
show that a substantial number of persons will probably be confused as to
the origin of the goods or the existence or non- existence of such a
connection … the comparison must be made with reference to the
sense, sound and appearance of the marks. The marks must be
viewed as they would be encountered in the marketplace and against the
background of relevant surrounding circumstances. The marks must not
background of relevant surrounding circumstances. The marks must not
only be considered side by side, but also separately. It must be
8
borne in mind that the ordinary purchaser may encounter goods,
bearing the defendant’s mark, with an imperfect recollection of the
registered mark and due allowance must be made for this. If each of
the marks contains a main or dominant feature or idea the likely impact
made by this on the mind of the customer must be taken into account. As
it has been put, marks are remembered rather by general impressions or
by some significant or striking feature than by a photographic recollection
of the whole. And finally, consideration must be given to the manner in
which the marks are likely to be employed as for example, the use of
name marks in conjunction with a generic description of the goods”.
4.9. CORBETT JA: stated further at paragraph 47 in Plascon Evans “…in my view, a
purely verbal comparison is not enough. As I have said, in cases such as this the
Court must transport itself to the marketplace and try to visualize how customers
of the goods, in relation to which the marks are used, would react “.
5. FINDINGS
5.1. I find that the Applicant has shown good cause to bring this application
under section 160 of the Companies Act.
5.2. I further find that the First Respondent’s name is so confusingly similar to the
Applicant’s trade mark that is falsely implies or suggests that, or reasonably
mislead a person to believe incorrectly, that the Company is part of, or
associated with, the Applicant in contravention of section 11(2)( c) of the
Companies Act.
5.3. Considering the conspectus of the case cited above and the guidance from the
above case, I conclude that the First Respondent’s name runs foul of the
provisions of sections 11(2)(b)(iii) read with section 11(2)(a)(iii) and Section
11(2)(c) (i) of the Companies Act.
6. ORDER
9
I hereby grant the following relief by default judgement:
6.1. The First Respondent is ordered to change its name to one which does not
consist of ,or incorporate, the mark GW , or any other mark which is confusingly
and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s GW trademark.
6.2. The Second Respondent is directed to change the name of the First Respondent
to its registration number, in the event of the First Respondent not complying
with point 6.1 above within 3 months from the date of this order; and
6.3. The Second Respondent notify the First Respondent within 14 days of this order.
6.4. No order as to costs.
H K Dlepu
Member or the Companies Tribunal