1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: CT02797ADJ2026
In the matter between:
DC COMICS Applicant
and
SUPERMAN FUNNY (PTY) LIMITED First Respondent
(2025/586555/07)
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Second Respondent
Date of Decision: 30
th July 2026
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1. The Applicant is DC COMICS a general partnership organized under
laws of the State on New York having its registered office at 400 Warner
Boulevard Burbank CA 91522 USA.
2
2. The First Respondent is SUPERMAN FUNNY (PTY) LIMITED a South
African company incorporated in terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008,
with registration no. (2025/586555/07).
3. The Second Respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission, an organ of state established in terms of Section 185 of the
Companies Act, having its principal place of business at DTI Campus, Block
F, 77 Meintjies Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria, Gauteng (“ClPC”).
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 Applicant has various trade marks in the name superman. The
Superman comic was first published in 1938. It also appeared in various
newspapers, radio shows, television programs and movies . There also
various toys clothes and collectibles. Superman is well known globally and
on social media
6. The first respondent has deliberately adopted and persisted in using a
name that is confusingly and deceptively similar to that of the applicant..
7. The issue to be determined by this Tribunal is whether the first
respondent’s name contravenes Section 11(2) of the Companies Act and
3
whether, in those circumstances, the first respondent should be ordered to
inter alia change its name.
8. The First Respondent’s name is contrary to the provisions of Sections
11 (2)(a)(iii) and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Companies Act in that it is confusingly
similar to a trademark belonging to the Applicant and will reasonably mislead
a person to believe incorrectly that the First Respondent is part of or
associated with the Applicant.
9. The Applicant has attempted to resolve this matter without resorting to
litigation but has not received the First Respondent’s co- operation.
Therefore, the Applicant has no option but to proceed with this formal
objection.
APPLICABLE LAW
10. 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
4
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
(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;
...”
EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
11. Section 11 (2) of the Companies Act requires me to determine whether
the name of the respondent is confusingly similar to that of the
Applicants. The Respondents name has Superman which is a well
known trademark belonging to the Applicant . When members of the
public see the Respondents name they will think of the Applicant. This
may give members of the public the impression that it is owned by the
Applicant with the potential to cause reputational damage. Since the
names are similar members of the public may use the Respondents
business thinking it is the Applicants business causing financial harm
and reputational damage to the Applicant.
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 trademark .
I
5
13. thus find in favour of the Applicant.
ORDER
a. I find in favour of the Applicant
b. The Respondent is directed to change its name to one which
does not incorporate and is not confusingly and or
deceptively similar to Applicant's . It should not include the
word Superman in any form.
c. The 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.
d. In the event that the 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
respondent’s name to is registered company number being
2025/586555/07 as the Respondent’s interim company name
on the Companies register.
e. The Respondent is hereby exempted from the requirement to
pay the prescribed fee for filing the notice of amendment
contemplated in this paragraph.
f. This Determination must be served on the Respondent and
the Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission.
MOHAMED ALLI CHICKTAY
MEMBER OF THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL