1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted
from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: CT02608ADJ2026
In the matter between:
ESSILOR SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
ESSILOR LUXOTTICA ENTERPRISE (PTY) LTD First Respondent
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION
Second Respondent
Presiding member:
Date of decision:
Richard Bradstreet
5 May 2026
DECISION (Reasons and Order)
1. This application concerns a company name objection brought in terms of
section 160 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“ the Act ”), in which the
Applicant seeks a determination that the First Respondent’s name does not
satisfy the requirements of section 11 of the Act. The Applicant further seeks
a default order in terms of regulation 153 of the Companies Regulations 2011,
2
the First Respondent having failed to file an answering affidavit in response to
the application.
2. The Applicant is a long- established South African manufacturer of eyewear. It
forms part of an international group of companies known as “EssilorLuxottica”,
which includes a number of South African affiliates, among them Luxottica
Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd, Damar Optical (Pty) Ltd, and Rxpress Optical (Pty)
Ltd. The First Respondent is a private company registered on 12 December
2025, whose registered name is “Essilor Luxottica Enterprise (Pty) Ltd” and
whose business activities are recorded in the public records as “not restricted”.
3. The Applicant contends that the First Respondent’s name wholly incorporates
both its own name and that of an affiliated company, Luxottica Southern Africa
(Pty) Ltd, and corresponds to the well -known group identifier
“EssilorLuxottica”, with the result that the name is confusingly similar to the
Applicant’s and creates a misleading impression of association.
DEFAULT RELIEF
4. The application was filed with the Companies Tribunal on 18 February 2026.
Service on the First Respondent was effected by the Sheriff on 19 February
2026, by handing a copy of the Notice of Motion, founding affidavit and
annexures to a responsible employee at the First Respondent’s registered
address (1[…] M[…] Street, Bethlehem, Free State).
3
5. Service on the Second Respondent was effected by electronic mail on 17
February 2026 to the address corporatelegalservices@cipc.co.za. The First
Respondent has not filed any answering affidavit, and the period of twenty
business days prescribed for doing so lapsed on 19 March 2026.
6. I am satisfied that there has been adequate service, and thus compliance with
regulation 153(2)( b). It also appears that the Applicant passes the “good
cause” test in that a reasonable explanation is given as to why the application
should be heard by the Tribunal, and there has been no undue delay in
bringing the application.
APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
7. Section 160(1) of the Act provides that any person with an interest in the name
of a company may apply to the Companies Tribunal for a determination
whether the name satisfies the requirements of section 11. Such an
application 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” (section 160(2)).
8. Section 11(2) of the Act provides, inter alia, that a company name must not:
4
(a) be the same as the name of another company, a registered trade mark
belonging to another person, or a mark in respect of which an application
has been filed for registration as a trade mark in the Republic;
(b) be confusingly similar to such a name, trade mark or mark; or
(c) 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 another person.
Confusing similarity
9. “Similar” in section 11(2)( b) means “having a marked resemblance or
likeness”, and the offending name should immediately bring to mind the well -
known trade mark or other name ( Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC 2001 (1) SA
844 (SCA)).
10. Whether there is a confusing similarity involves a value judgment ( Cowbell AG
v ICS Holdings 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA) para 10), and presupposes that the
names are to be used together in a normal and fair manner, in the ordinary
course of business ( SmithKline Beecham Consumer Brands (Pty) Ltd v
Unilever plc 1995 (2) SA 903 (A) at 912H).
11. In particular, one must ask whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that
ordinary members of the public, or a substantial section thereof, may be
5
confused or deceived into believing” that the goods or services of one are
those of the other or are connected therewith ( Adidas AG & another v Pepkor
Retail Limited (187/12) [2013] ZASCA 3 (28 February 2013) para 28; Capital
Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd v Holiday Inns Inc 1977 (2) SA 916 (A)
at 929).
12. The comparison must be made by reference to how the names will be
perceived by the “ordinary reasonable careful man, i.e. not the very careful
man nor the very careless man” ( Link Estates (Pty) Ltd v Rink Estates (Pty)
Ltd 1979 (2) SA 276 (E) at 280), bearing in mind that the comparison is not
undertaken with the two names presented side by side, and that allowance
must be made for the ordinary imperfections of human memory (the doctrine
of imperfect recollection: Ewing t/a The Buttercup Dairy Company v Buttercup
Margarine Corporation Ltd 1917 (34) RPC 225 at 232 and 238).
13. The names “must be viewed as they would be encountered in the marketplace
and against the background of relevant surrounding circumstances” ( Plascon-
Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at
640G–641E), with regard to “the class of persons who are likely to be the
purchasers of the goods in question” ( Reckitt & Colman SA (Pty) Ltd v SC
Johnson & Son SA (Pty) Ltd 1993 (2) SA 307 (A) at 315F–G).
6
ANALYSIS
14. The Applicant relies on its registered company name “Essilor South Africa
(Pty) Ltd”, which was registered on 4 December 1990 under registration
number 1990/007254/07, and under which it has traded as a manufacturer in
the eyewear industry for some thirty -five years prior to the registration of the
First Respondent. It also relies on its association with Luxottica Southern
Africa (Pty) Ltd and on the well -known international group identifier
“EssilorLuxottica”, under whose flag the Applicant and its South African
affiliates operate. Annexed to the founding papers is evidence that searches
for the name “Essilor Luxottica Enterprise (Pty) Ltd” return results referring to
the Applicant and its international group, and not to the First Respondent.
15. The First Respondent’s name consists of three elements: “Essilor”, “Luxottica”
and “Enterprise”. The first two elements are incorporated in their entirety from
identifiers belonging to or associated with the Applicant. “Essilor” is the
dominant and distinctive element of the Applicant’s own registered company
name. “Luxottica” is the dominant and distinctive element of the name of the
associated company, Luxottica Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd, and the two together
(“EssilorLuxottica”) comprise the global identifier of the group of which the
Applicant forms part. The third element, “Enterprise”, is a generic descriptor
that does no work to distinguish the impugned name from the Applicant’s
identifiers. It is the kind of word that may be appended to almost any business
name without altering its commercial impression.
7
16. Both “Essilor” and “Luxottica” are invented words. Neither has any descriptive
content in English, and neither could plausibly have been arrived at
independently. This is not a case in which the Applicant seeks to monopolise
the ordinary use of common English words; it is a case in which the First
Respondent has incorporated, without authorisation, two distinctive coined
words that are recognisable identifiers of an established multinational eyewear
group with a substantial South African presence. The distinctiveness of an
invented word, when placed at the front and centre of a composite name,
sharply narrows the scope for an ordinary reasonable person to read the
name as anything other than a reference to the entity to which the invented
word belongs.
17. Viewed as a whole, and as it would be encountered in the marketplace
(Plascon-Evans supra), the First Respondent’s name does not merely
resemble the Applicant’s name and that of its sister company; it reproduces
both, in sequence, exactly as they appear in the international group’s
identifier. An ordinary reasonable person, with the imperfect recollection
contemplated by Ewing supra, encountering the name “Essilor Luxottica
Enterprise (Pty) Ltd” on an invoice, signage, or in correspondence, would be
very likely to conclude that the entity is part of, an extension of, or otherwise
associated with, the Applicant’s group. That conclusion would be reinforced
rather than dispelled by the addition of the word “Enterprise”, which reads as a
sub-brand or operational designation rather than as an independent source
identifier.
8
18. The contextual factors point in the same direction. The First Respondent’s
recorded business activities are unrestricted, and on the public records there
is no indication of the field in which it intends to operate. In those
circumstances the most natural inference for a person encountering the name
is that it operates in the field associated with “EssilorLuxottica” – that is,
eyewear and related vision-care products and services. Such a person, falling
within the broad class of persons whose perception is relevant to the inquiry
under section 11(2)(b), is likely to assume some connection between the First
Respondent and the Applicant’s group.
19. Taking these considerations together, and applying the value judgment
required by Cowbell supra, I am satisfied that the First Respondent’s name is
confusingly similar to the Applicant’s company name, contrary to section
11(2)(b) of the Act.
20. It follows, in my view, that section 11(2)( c)(i) is also contravened. The
wholesale incorporation of two distinctive identifiers belonging to or associated
with the Applicant – combined into a sequence that mirrors the well -known
international group name – is such as would reasonably mislead a person to
believe incorrectly that the First Respondent is a part of, or otherwise
associated with, the Applicant. Such a belief would be incorrect. The First
Respondent’s name therefore does not satisfy the requirements of the Act.
ORDER
9
21. In the result, I make the following order:
(a) The application for default relief is granted.
(b) The First Respondent is directed to:
(i) change its name to one which neither incorporates “Essilor” nor
“Luxottica”, nor any word or phrase confusingly similar to either,
and which does not otherwise imply an association with the
Applicant or the EssilorLuxottica group of companies, and
(ii) file a notice of amendment to its Memorandum of Incorporation
within 3 (three) months of the date of this order.
(c) In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with paragraph ( b)
above, the Second Respondent is directed to substitute the First
Respondent’s registration number as its interim company name.
(d) the Tribunal’s Recording Officer (Registrar) is directed to serve this order
on the First and Second Respondents.
__________________________
10
Richard Bradstreet
Member of the Companies Tribunal
5 May 2026