1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO:
CT02344ADJ2025
In the matter between:
MONDI SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant
(Registration Number 1967/013038/07)
and
MONDI WORKPLACE SERVICES (PTY) 1
ST Respondent
(Registration Number 2023/267643/07)
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES
COMMISSION 2nd Respondent
Date of Decision: 11th June 2026
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1. The Applicant is Mondi South Africa (Pty) Ltd , a company duly
incorporated and registered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South
Africa with registration number 1967/013038/07.
2
2. The First Respondent is Mondi Workplace Services (Pty) a company
duly incorporated and registered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South
Africa with registration number No. 2023/267643/07.
3. The Second Respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Properties
Commission resident at DTI Campus 77 Meintjies Street
4. The Applicant applies to the Companies Tribunal in terms of Section
11(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Companies Act”), a name of a
company must not be the same as the name of another company,
domesticated company, registered external company, close corporation or
co-operative and must not be confusingly similar.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
5. The A pplicant filed its company name objection with the Companies
Tribunal and the A pplicant served the company name objection on the
respondent through the Sherriff. Despite being informed of the application
the first respondent does not oppose it.
6. The Applicant submits that it the R espondents name is confusingly
similar to its name.
3
7. The Applicant has a number of trade marks in the term Mondi . It also
has a number of subsidiary companies with the term MONDI. The Applicant
has spent extensively on marketing.
8. The First Res pondent was registered in 2023. The Applicant is
concerned that the public would confuse the first Respondent with itself
causing reputational damage.
9. The first, and therefore dominant, element of the First Respondent’s
company name is MONDI, which is visually, phonetically and conceptually
identical to the Applicant’s well known MONDI trade mark. Members of the
public encountering the First Respondent’s name are likely to assume that
the name refers to another entity within the Applicant’s own group of
companies.
10. The Applicant requests that the Tribunal grant the following relief: (a)
ordering the First Respondent to change its name to one which does not
incorporate the mark MONDI or any mark which is identical or confusingly
and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s MONDI trade mark; (b) ordering
the First Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings; (c) in
the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with the order set out in
paragraph (a) above within three (3) months, that the Second Respondent,
the Commissioner of Companies is directed, in terms of section 160(3)(b)(ii)
read with section 14(2)(b)(i) of the Act, to record the First Respondent’s
registration number followed by ‘(Pty) Ltd’, as the First Respondent’s interim
4
company name on the companies register; and (d) grant the Applicant further
and/or alternative relief.
NAME DISPUTES
APPLICABLE LAW
11. Section 11 of the Companies Act provides the criteria for names of
companies.
Subsection (2) is most relevant and states as follows:
“(2) the name of a company must –
(a) not be the same as, or confusingly similar to –
(i) the name of another company, registered external
company, close corporation or co- operative unless the
company forms part of a group of companies using
similar names;
(ii) ... Not relevant
(iii) a registered trademark 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 trademark or a well -known trademark as
contemplated in section 35 of the trademarks act; or
(iv) ... Not relevant
2 (b) 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
EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
12. The purpose of section 11 of the Companies Act is to protect names
from being passed off by new companies registering similar names at the
expense of the original name holder of the company or trade mark . In the
case before me the First Respondents’ name is similar to several trade
marks held by the Applicant. The First Respondents Name is similar to the
Applicants. Both Have the term MONDI in them. This may give members of
the public the impression that the Respondent is associated with the
Applicant. This may effect the Applicants reputation and financially.
13. The First Respondent is thus ordered to change its name to one that
does not include MONDI in it.
14. By having the same name as the Applicant members of the public are
misled to believe that the Respondent is associated with the Applicant.
ORDER
15. I find in favour of the Applicant
a. The First Respondent is ordered to change its name to one
which does not incorporate MONDI and is not confusingly and or
deceptively similar to Applicant's.
b. The First Respondent is to file a notice of an amendment of its
Memorandum of Incorporation, within 60 days of receipt of this
order in order to change its name as per above.
6
c. In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with the
order as aforementioned, within 3 months, from the date of the
order, that Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
(CIPC) be directed, in terms of Section 160(3) (b) (ii) read with
section 14(2) of the Act, to change the First respondent’s name
to is registered company number being 2 023/267643/07as the
First Respondent’s interim company name on the Companies
register.
d. The First Respondent is hereby exempted from the requirement
to pay the prescribed fee for filing the notice of amendment
contemplated in this paragraph.
e. The Second R espondent is required to register the name
applied for by the applicant once the Respondents name is
removed from the registrar by the First Respondent or by CIPC
within three months of the First Respondent failing to do so.
f. The registrar of the Tribunal is instructed to bring this ruling to
the attention of CIPC.
MOHAMED ALLI CHICKTAY
MEMBER OF THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL