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: CT02656/ADJ/2026
In the matter between:
AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS LIMITED Applicant
And
MZANZI ANGLOVAAL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED 1
st Respondent
(Registration No 2024/239128/07)
And
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION 2
nd Respondent
___________________________________________________________________
Presiding Member of the Companies Tribunal: HLALELENI KATHLEEN DLEPU
Date of Decision: 15 MAY 2026
2
DECISION and REASONS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The applicant is African Rainbow Minerals Limited , incorporated in terms of the
company laws of the Republic of South Africa with, registration number
1933/004580/06 and having its registered address at 29 Impala Road,
Chislehurston, Gauteng, 2196
1.2. The first respondent is Mzanzi Anglovaal Group (Pty) Limited a company duly
incorporated in accordance with the company laws of the Republic of South
Africa with registration number 2024/239128 /07 and having its registered
address being Ground, Building No 4, Quadrium Office Park , 50 Constantia
Boulevard, Constantia Kloof Ext 28, Johannesburg, Gauteng (The details are as
recorded in the CIPC records.).
1.3. The second respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
(CIPC) established by Section 185 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 t he
Companies Act for an order as follows:
2.1.1. Granting a default order in respect of the f irst respondent’s company
name, Mzanzi Anglovaal Group (Pty) Limited does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 11( 2)(oupa )(ii) ,11(2) (c ) (b) and 11(2) (c)(i) as
provided for in Section 160 and in particular 160(3)(b) ((ii) of the Companies
Act thereof.
2.2. The applicant has an interest in the name of the f irst respondent within the
meaning of Section 160(1) of the Act to file this a pplication to the Companies
Tribunal. The applicant’s interest will appear from the facts which were initiated
3
and documented by the Applicant in its affidavit in particular, the Applicants
trademark rights in and to the AngloVaal trademark.
3. THE BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
3.1. In March 2025 the applicant instructed the Attor neys of record Adams & Adams
to file an application in t erms of Section 160 of the Act requesting the
Companies Tribunal to grant an order that the company name Mzanzi Anglovaal
Group (Pty) Limited (first respondents’) be changed on the basis that it is
contrary to Section 11(2) of the Companies Act. The application was supported
by the founding affidavit of Lucas Joseph Zebilon Sebaibai Moalusi and a
confirmatory affidavit in the name of Debra Louise Marriot.
3.2. The main application was served electronically on the sole director of the first
applicant at the email listed on the CIPC records namely a[…] @gmail.com as
well as the alternative e mail address c[ …] @gmail.com which was apparently
provided by the first respondent. A subsequent service was effected on the 19
March 2026 all the proofs of service was att ached to the main application as
annexures.
3.3. In terms of regulation 142(2) of the Companies Regulation, the main application
must be served on the respondents within five (5) days from the date on which
the it was filed with the Tribunal , the application was filed as indicated by the
date stamped on CTR142, and the applicants complied with the deadline to
serve the main application which deadline expired on the 26 March 2026. All the
applications were also served on the second applicant as required by the Act.
3.4. Furthermore on the 24 March 2026 the sheriff served a copy of the main
application on the first r espondent’s registered physical registered being
,Ground Floor ,Building No 4,Quadrium Office Park, 50 Constantia Boulevard,
Constantia Kloof Ext 28, Johannesburg, Gauteng. The sheriff made two follow
up services at the business address of the first respondent by affixing a copy of
up services at the business address of the first respondent by affixing a copy of
the main application on the door of the stated business address of the first
respondent.
4
3.5. The applicant was unable to obtain an alternative address of the first
respondent. Despite the numerous efforts of the applicant to bring the main
application to the attention of the first respondent ,the respondent failed to
respond at it was evident that the respondent would not of its volition change the
offensive name which was confusingly and /similar to the applicants trademark
ANGLOVAAL which trademark was registered in 1992 in terms of the Section
34(1) ( c) of the Trade Marks Act No 194 0f 1993 long before the incorporation of
the first respondent in 2024.
3.6. I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for the main application to
be considered by default against the first respondent.
4. THE APPLICANTS CASE
4.1. The applicant seeks the following order:
(a) That the First Respondent’s name does not comply with Sections 11(2)(b) and
11(2)(c)(i) of the Act:
(b) the First Respondent is directed to choose a name which does not consist of or
incorporate the mark ANGLOVAAL or any other mark which is confusingly and/or
deceptively similar to the Applicant’s ANGLOVAAL trade mark and
(c) That the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, the Second
Respondent in terms of Section 160(3)(b)(ii)read with Section 14(2)0f the Act, be
directed to change the name of the First Respondent to its registration number in
the event of the First Respondent not complying with the order set out in
paragraph 4.1(b) above within 60 days from the date of this order .
(d) That the second respondent be directed in terms of Section 169(3)(ii) read with
Section 14(2) of the Companies Act.to record the first respondent’s registration
number followed by (Pty)Ltd as the f irst respondent’s interim company name on
the companies register; and
(e) The applicant be granted further and/alternative relief.
5
4.2. The Order is sought for the following reasons:
4.2.1. The applicant has an interest in the name of the first respondent within the
meaning of Section 160 (1) of the Act and i s the proprietor of amongst
others, various South African registered trademark rights namely:
(i) Trade Mark; ANGLOVAAL Registration no 1982 /00679 filed on
29 January 1982 Class 35
“covering amongst others “ Advertisements, advertising publicity
management, business consultants , general business information,
printing and distribution of circulars, prospectus, reports and annual
company reports , commercial printed matter, compilation,
transmission and systematization of information and statistical data
,accounting auditing, secretarial services, analysing of prices stock
exchange prices, tax assessments including all other services
related to the above”
(ii) Trade Mark: ANGLOVAAL Registration no 1982/00680 filed on 29
January 1982 class 36
“covering Investments, capital investments, investments trusts,
financing financial guarantees, securities and transactions, bonds
and other securities, depositing of securities and of stocks and
shares , banking insurance and assurance brokers , stockbrokers,
underwriters, money exchange. monetary transactions; including all
other services related to the above:
4.3. The above trademarks are still valid and enforceable; copies of the trademark
register pages were attached to the applicant’s affidavit”. The applicant’s
trademarks have been registered for several years prior to the incorporation of
the first respondent.
6
4.4. The ANGLOVAAL trademark has been used extensively by the a pplicant
globally and in South Africa and is well known globally and in South Africa.
4.5. The first respondent’s Company name MZANZI ANGLOVAA L offends the
provision of Section 11(2) (a)(iii)in that it is identical to or the same as the
applicant’s ANGLOVAAL trademark registration which incorporation of the f irst
respondent y several years
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 anytime 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) …
7
(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…”
5.4. the question is whether the f irst respondent’s name and the a pplicant’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 operates a vast variety of services which it offers throughout
South Africa and globally which can be found at
https//www.news24.com/business/anglo.dumps-its-avmin-interests-
20030502 , ANGLOVAAL registered trademark 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 clear, the use of
8
the applicant’s name by the f irst respondent is confusingly similar to the
applicant’s name and trademarks. This elevates the risk of confusion between
the applicant’s trademark and the f irst respondent’s name, products, and
services in the marketplace.
5.6. I further contend and agree that the confusion and/or deception, can lead to
injury to the a pplicant’s business. This is particularly so when it is taken into
account that the a pplicant has absolutely no control whatsoever on the quality
and type of goods sold and services rendered by the company.
5.7. This protection is illustrated succinctly 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
9
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”.
5.8. 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 f irst 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 a pplicant in contravention of S ection 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 f irst 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.
7. ORDER
I hereby grant the following relief by default judgement.
10
7.1. The first respondent is ordered to change its name to one which does not
consist of, or incorporate, the mark ANGLOVAAL or any other mark which is
confusingly and/or deceptively similar to the a pplicant’s ANGLOVAAL
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 7.1 above within 3 months from the date of this order; and
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