1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: CT/02611/ADJ/2026
In the matter between:
AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERAL LIMITED Applicant
And
AFRICAN RAINBOW STAR (PTY) LIMITED 1
st Respondent
(Registration No 2025/551451/07)
And
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION 2
nd Respondent
___________________________________________________________________
Presiding Member of the Companies Tribunal: HLALELENI KATHLEEN DLEPU
Date of Decision: 17 April 2026
DECISION and REASONS
2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Applicant is African Rain bow Minerals Limited, a company duly
incorporated and regist ered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South
Africa with the registration number 1933/004580/06 with its registered
address at 29 Impala Road, Chilslehurston, Gauteng. The Applicant is the
proprietor of statutory and common law rights in the well -known AFRICAN
RAINBOW MINERALS trademark.
1.2 The First Respondent is African Rainbow Star (Pty) Limited a company duly
incorporated in accordance with the company laws of the Republic of South
Africa with registration number 2025/551451/07 with its registered address at
57 Dalton Road ,Block D Unit 13 ,Conge lla, KwaZulu -Natal, 4001 These
details for the First Respondent were 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, African Rainbow Star (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 and that the First Respondent be
directed to choose a new name, as provided for in Section 160,and in
particular sub-section (3)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act.
2.1.2. Granting alternative relief in the event that the First Respondent fails to
comply with the Order asset out in 2.1.1 within a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of the order ,that the Second Respondent be directed in terms
of Section (160) (3 ) (b) read w ith section 14(2) of the Companies Act ,to
3
change the First Respondent ’ s name to its company name being
‘’2025/551145/07” as the First Respondent’s new company name on the
companies register;
2.1.3. Costs in the Applican t’s favour in the event that the First Respondent
opposes the application; and
2.1.4. Granting the Applicant further and/or alternative relief.
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 AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS trademark.
2.3. The Application seeking relief in terms F orm CTR 142 were served on the First
Respondent by email dated the 15 February 2026, filed an application for relief
in terms of Section 160 of the Act ( “ the Main Application” ) requesting the
Tribunal to grant an order that the First Respondent change its name African
Rainbow Star (Pty) Limited to be changed on the basis that it is contrary to
Section 11(2)of the Act. The application was supported by a founding affidavit in
the name of Lucas Joseph Zebilon Sebaibai Moalusi and a confirmatory affidavit
in the name of Debra Louise Marriot.
2.4. In terms of regulation 142(2) of the Companies Regulations, served on the 23
rd
February 2026 the main Application electronically at the email address of the
First Respondents’ incorporation documents namely
support@businessneeds.co.za on the same date the Main Application was also
served electronically to the Second Respondent
2.5. On the 24th February 2026 sheriff proceeded to serve on the First Respondents
registered premises as recorded in the CIPC company records on the 24th
February 2026, a copy of the Sheriff’s return of non- service as the premises
were locked was attached to the Applicants Affidavit and a further attempt to
were locked was attached to the Applicants Affidavit and a further attempt to
serve electronically on the Directors of the First Respondent via email using
the email address recorded on the CIPC records. .
4
2.6. It is evident from the sequence of events and numerous attempts made by the
Applicant to serve the Application on the First Respondent there was no other
available means to serve the Application on the F irst Respondent. The Applicant
submits that he has met all the requirements for service under the C ompanies
Act. And the Uniform Rules of the High Court
2.7. The First Respondent had until the 24th March 2026 being 20 (twenty) days to
file and serve its response to the main application, and to date no response has
been filed.
2.8. I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for the main application to
be considered by default against the First Respondent.
3. THE APPLICANTS CASE
3.1. The Applicant has lodged an objection to the registration of the name AFRICAN
RAINBOW STAR (PTY) LIMITED by the First Respondent in terms of section
11(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 for the purpose of approaching the
second Respondent for the following order:
3.1.1. That the companies Tribunal is requested to make a determination in
terms of Section 160(3) (a) of the Act that:
(i) The First Respondent’s name does not comply with section
11(2)(a), Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(2)(c) (i) of the Act.
(ii) that the First Respondent be directed in terms of Section
160(3)(b) (ii) to choose a name which does not consist of or
incorporate the trademark or mark of A FRICAN RAINBOW
or any other ma rk which is confusingly and/or deceptively
similar to the Applicant AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS
trademark.
(iii) In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with
the order set out in paragraph (ii) of the above within thirty
5
(30) days from the date of the order, that the second
Respondent be directed in terms of Section 160 Register;
read with Section 14(2) of the Companies Act to change the
First Respondent name to 2025 /551451/07 (PTY) LTD as
the First Respondent interim company name on the
Companies Register; and
(iv) an order as to costs in favour of the Applicant in terms of
regulation 156 of the Act.
3.2. The order is sought due to the follow reasons:
(i) That the name A FRICAN RAINBOW STAR (PTY) LTD does not
satisfy the requirements of
(ii) Section 11(2)(a) and or Section 11(2)(b) of the Companies Act in
that the name is confusingly similar to the Applicant’s registered,
well known A FRICAN RAINBOW trademark as contemplated in
Section 11(2)(a) without exemption under the listed grounds
contained in Section 11(2)(b) and/or
(iii) Section 11(2)( c) of the Companies Act in that it falsely implies or
suggests, or would reasonably mislead a person to believe
incorrectly, that the First Respondent is part of or associated with
the Applicant.
3.3. In support of this Application the Applicant attached supporting affidavits in the
names of Luca Joseph Zebilon Sebaibai Moalusi and Debra Louse Marriott
setting out the facts upon which the Applicant relies on both duly authorised by
resolutions. Attachments to the Applicants Af fidavit included amongst others
Disclosure Certificate issued by the Commissioner of the CIPC in respect African
Rainbow Minerals Limited and all the requi red authority to launch the
Application.
6
4. BACKGROUND
4.1. ARM’s predecessor, African Rainbow Minerals Gold Limited was simply known
as “ARM GOLD” and has a history of mining in South Africa dating back in 1933,
it listed in the JSE in 19 97 and was known as “ ARM GOLD” and currently
operates mines in the Northern Cape, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Kwa-Zulu Natal
and Malaysia. ARM’s workforce consist of thousands of employees and
contractors and its business model centres on forging mutually benefic ial
partnerships with major players and investors in the resources sector.
4.2. The Applicant and its business are constantly profiled and reported on in both
local and international publications, the press, and the internet as “African
Rainbow” and/or “ARM”.
4.3. The Applicant is the proprietor in South Africa, of several trademarks
incorporating ARM. In particular, the Applicant is the brand it is simply referred to
as ‘African Rainbow” and or “ARM” in the media. The Applicant attached to its
affidavit copies of media articles in support of its contention.
4.4. The Applicant is the proprietor, in South Africa, of several trademarks
incorporating AFRICAN RAINBOW. The list on the relevant trademarks and a full
description trademark numbers, trademark classes and their date of registration
has been listed in the Applicants affidavit to the Application to the Tribunal.
4.5. In summary and for the sake of completion the listed trademarks are as follows
amongst others:
4.5.1. AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS Trademark registration no 2005/06960
in class 06 filed on 14 April 2005
4.5.2. AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS Trademark registration no 2005/06961
in class 14 filed on the 11 April 2005
4.5.3. AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS Trademark registration no 2005/0696 2
in class 35 filed on the 11April 2005
4.5.4. AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS Trademark registration no 2005/06963
in class 37 filed on the11 April 2005
7
4.5.5. AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS Trademark registration no 2017 /32097
in class 6 filed on 2 November 2017
4.5.6. AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS Trademark registration no 2005/0696 4
in class 40 filed on 11April 2005
4.5.7. AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS Trademark registration no 2017/32101
in class 42 filed on 2 November 2017.
The above list is not conclusive, as there are many others not mentioned.
The above is a confirmation that African Rainbow Minerals has long been
registered as a trademark.
4.6. The statutory trademark arising from the registration of the A FRICAN
RAINBOW MINERALS trademark are valid, enforceable, and predate the
incorporation of the First Responde nt which was only registered lately on the 11
July 2025 whilst the Applicant AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERAL S trademark
has been registered almost 20 years ago and have been timeously renewed
over the years as required by law.
4.7. The Applicant has an interest in the First Respondents name within the meaning
of Act as the name incorporates the Applicants mark AFRICAN RAINBOW 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.
4.8. The mark AFRICAN RAINBOW is visually and phonetically identical to the
Applicant’s registered trademark AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERAL SS. 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 c ertificates that were issued by the Registrar of Trademarks were
annexed to the Applicants affidavit. These trademark registrations are valid and
in force and will hereinafter be referred to as the Applicants ’ AFRICAN
in force and will hereinafter be referred to as the Applicants ’ AFRICAN
RAINBOW MINERALS trademark registrations.
8
5. APPLICABLE LAW
5.1. 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”.
5.2. 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”.
5.3. 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 –
(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-
9
(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…”
5.4. 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.
5.5. The Applicant conducts and operates a vast variety of mining , other services
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 Fir st Respondent’s Company is not known or 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.
5.6. I further agree the confusion and/or deception, can lead to injury to the
Applicant’s business. This is particularly so when it is considered that the
Applicant has absolutely no control whatsoever on the quality and type of goods
sold and services rendered by the Company.
5.7. 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
10
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.
5.8. 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
only be considered side by side, but also separately. It must be
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”.
11
5.9. 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 “.
6. FINDINGS
6.1. I find that the Applicant has shown good cause to bring this application
under section 160 of the Companies Act.
6.2. I further find that the First Respondent’s name is so confusingly similar to the
Applicant’s trademark 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.
6.3. Considering the conspectus of the case cited above and the guidance from the
above case, I conclude that the First Respondent’s name runs afoul 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.
7. ORDER
I hereby grant the following relief by default judgement.
7.1. The First Respondent is ordered to change its name to one which does not
consist of, or incorporate, the mark AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERAL S, or any
other mark which is confusingly and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s
AFRICAN RAINBOW trademark.
7.2. 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 8.1 above within 30 days(1 month) from the date of this order the
second respondent to change the first respondents name to its re gistration
number being “2025/55145/07” as the first respondents new company name on
the companies register that; and
12
7.3. The Second Respondent notify the First Respondent within 14 days of this order.
7.4. No order as to costs.
H K Dlepu Member or the Tribunal