1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: CT02617ADJ2026
In the matter between:
CB SECURITY RAPID RESPONSE (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
CB PROTECTION NW (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, the Fir st
Respondent having failed to file an answering affidavit in response to the
application.
2
2. The Applicant trades as “CB Security” in the security services industry in the
North West Province, with its head office in Potchefstroom and a footprint
extending to Schweizer-Reneke, Vryburg, Vereeniging and other towns in that
province. It has done so under its registered company name since its
incorporation in 2018.
3. The First Respondent is a private company registered on 21 February 2023,
also based in Potchefstroom, which trades under the names “CB Protection”
and “Cross Border Protection”, and which provides security services in
substantially the same geographical area. The Applicant contends that the First
Respondent’s name is confusingly similar to its own and creates a misleading
association between the two undertakings, and that the position has been
aggravated by an actual instance of confusion arising from a firearm discharge
incident reported in the press in September 2025.
DEFAULT RELIEF
4. The application was filed with the Companies Tribunal on 25 February 2026 and
served on the First Respondent by electronic mail on 27 February 2026 to the
email addresses recorded for its directors at the domain cbprotection.co.za. A
read-receipt confirms that the application was opened on 27 February 2026 at
16h22. The First Respondent has not filed any answering affidavit, and the
period prescribed for doing so has long expired. 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.
3
APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
5. 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)).
6. Section 11(2) of the Act provides, inter alia, that a company name must not:
(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
7. “Similar” in section 11(2)(b) means “having a marked resemblance or likeness”
(Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA), and the offending name
should immediately bring to mind the well-known trade mark or other name.
8. 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).
4
9. 9.In particular, one must ask whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that
ordinary members of the public, or a substantial section thereof, may be
confused or deceived into believing” that the goods or services of one are those
of the other or are connec ted 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).
10. 10.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, sometimes referred to as 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).
11. Regard must also be had 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), and 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).
ANALYSIS
12. The Applicant relies in the first instance on its registered company name “CB
Security Rapid Response (Pty) Ltd” (registered on 27 March 2018), under which
it has traded for approximately seven years prior to the registration of the First
5
Respondent’s name. The Applicant also asserts common law rights acquired
through that period of use, and refers to two pending trade mark applications
(numbers 2024/11507 and 2024/11508 in classes 37 and 45 respectively) for a
logo incorporating the letters “CB”. Those applications appear, on the papers,
to be held in the name of a related entity and are not registrations. For purposes
of section 11 of the Act, and the present application, the comparison most
squarely before the Tribunal is that between the company name of the Applicant
and that of the First Respondent – both of which fall within the protection
contemplated by section 11(2)(b) read with section 11(2)(a)(i).
13. The Applicant’s name commences with “CB Security”; the First Respondent’s
name commences with “CB Protection”. The dominant and memorable element
in each is, respectively, “CB Security” and “CB Protection”, and the only material
difference between the two is the substitution of the word “Protection” for
“Security”. Each is followed by a further descriptor : “Rapid Response” in the
case of the Applicant, and “NW” in the case of the First Respondent . These
add little distinctiveness in either case, the form er describing a recognised
category of security service and the latter a geographical reference.
14. The letters “CB” in the present matter do not appear merely as a combination
of two letters, deployed as a free-standing element. They form part of the overall
impression created by the respective names, and that impression must be
assessed by reference to the names as a whole and in their commercial context.
15. The letters are coupled with a word denoting a service in the security industry,
and it is the combined expression “CB Security” or “CB Protection” that does
the work of identifying each undertaking. The words “security” and “protection”
are, in the context of services rendered by private security companies, near
6
synonyms: the conceptual content of each name is thus the same: a security
services provider trading under the “CB” prefix. The words “Rapid Response”
appearing in the Applicant’s name does not serve to diminish the comparison,
since rapid response is itself a recognised service category within the security
industry, and a member of the public encountering “CB Protection NW” would
have no reason to think that it was not be a related undertaking within the same
“CB” group of security businesses.
16. It is so that the First Respondent also trades as “Cross Border Protection”, which
may, on one view, anchor the letters “CB” to the words “Cross Border” and so
dispel the impression of a shared prefix with the Applicant. The expression
“Cross Border”, however, appears only in the alternative trading name and on
the logo; the registered company name reads “CB Protection NW (Pty) Ltd”. A
member of the public encountering the company name without sight of the logo
or alternative trading name has nothing to anchor “CB” to “Cross Border”, and
is left with the dominant impression of a security business operating under the
“CB” prefix in Potchefstroom – the same prefix and the same locality under
which the Applicant has traded since 2018.
17. That observation is reinforced by the contextual factors mandated by Reckitt &
Colman and Plascon-Evans (supra). Both undertakings operate in the same
general geographical area, and offer substantially the same services to likely
the same customer base. The notional ordinary reasonable customer in this
market would be a resident or business in or around Potchefstroom seeking
armed response, guarding or related security services. Such a person,
encountering the names “CB Security” and “CB Protection” in t he ordinary
course, is not engaged in a careful side- by-side analysis but is operating with
7
imperfect recollection of the specific details of, and surrounding, the company
names. The risk that such a person will assume some connection between the
two undertakings is real and substantial.
18. The Applicant has placed before the Tribunal evidence of an actual instance of
such confusion. On 30 August 2025 an employee of the First Respondent
accidentally discharged a firearm at the Potch Geesfees outside Potchefstroom,
injuring an employee of th e Applicant. The incident was reported in the press
the following week, and the Applicant was constrained publicly to explain that
“CB Security” and “Cross Border Protection” are not the same company.
Although the published article ultimately distinguish ed between the two
undertakings, the very fact that such a clarification was needed – and that the
Applicant had to deliver it through the press – corroborates the conclusion that
the names are sufficiently alike to give rise to confusion in the minds of ordinary
members of the public. Actual confusion is not a precondition to relief under
section 11(2)( b), but where it has been shown to have occurred, it lends
significant weight to the prospective inquiry into the likelihood of confusion.
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, therefore, that section 11(2)(c)(i) is also contravened. A member of
the public confronted with the name “CB Protection NW (Pty) Ltd” in the same
town in which “CB Security Rapid Response (Pty) Ltd” has operated for some
seven years, and in the same line of business, is reasonably likely to draw the
inference that the First Respondent is a part of, an extension of, or otherwise
associated with, the Applicant. That inference would be incorrect. The First
8
Respondent’s name is therefore such as would reasonably mislead a person
into believing incorrectly that it is associated with the Applicant.
ORDER
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 “CB Security”
or “CB Protection”, nor is otherwise confusingly similar to the
Applicant’s company name, and which does not otherwise imply an
association with the Applicant; 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.
__________________________
Richard Bradstreet
Member of the Companies Tribunal
5 May 2026