1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: CT/02758/ADJ/2026
In the matter between:
MONDI SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Registration Number 1967/013038/07 Applicant
And
MONDI HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
Registration Number 2024/213405/07 First Respondent
COMMISSIONER COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY COMMISSION Second
Respondent
Presiding Member of the Companies Tribunal: HLALELENI KATHLEEN DLEPU
Date of Decision: 18 August 2026
2
DECISION and REASONS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Applicant is Mondi South Africa (Pty) Limited a private company
incorporated under the laws of South Africa with registration number
1967/013038/07 having its registered office at Merebank Mill , Travencore
Drive, Merebank ,Kwa-Zulu Natal ,4052 South Africa. The Applicant is the
proprietor of statutory and common law rights in the well- known “MONDI”
trademark.
1.2 The First Respondent is Mondi Holdings ( Pty) Limited a company duly
incorporated in accordance with the company laws of the Republic of South
Africa with registration number 202 4213405/07 having its registered address
at 1 Fungi Street, Kwazakhele, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape ,6205
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 the
Companies Act for an order as follows:
2.1.1 That the First Respondent to change its name and any other trademark
to one which does not incorporate and is not confusingly and/or deceptively
similar to the Applicant’s MONDI, or any other trademark/word that is
confusingly or deceptively similar thereto
3
2.1.2 In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with the order set out
in paragraph 2.1.1 above within 60 days ,the Second Respondent be directed
,in terms of Section 160 (3) (b)(ii) read w ith Section 14(2) of the Companies
Act ,to record the First Respondent’s registration number followed by (Pty)ltd
as the Respondent’s interim company name on the Companies Register
2.1.3 The Applicant be granted further and/or alternative relief.
2.2 The Applicant has also applied for a default order in respect of the First
Respondent’s company name Mondi Holdings (Pty) Limited, and the
application is based on Section 11 and 160 read with Regulation 153 of the
Companies Act 71 of 2008.
3. The Applicant has an interest in the name of the First Respondent within the
meaning of Section 160(1) of the Act to file this Application to the Companies
Tribunal. The Applicant’s interest will appear from the facts which were
initiated and documented by the Applicant in its affidavit in particular, the
Applicants trademark rights in and to the MONDI trademark.
3 THE BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION FOR JUDGEMENT BY
DEFAULT
3.1. On 20 May 2026 Applicant instructed the Attorneys of record Moore Attorneys
Incorporated to formally object to the use of company name Mondi Holdings
(Pty) Limited by the First Respondent.
3.2 On the 21 May 2026 the Second Respondent acknowledged receipt of the
Application by email . The Founding Affidavit was served on the Fi rst
Respondent on the 26 May 2026, by way of Sheriff affixing a copy of the
Application to th e principal door at no 1 Fungi Street , Kwazakhele, Port
Elizabeth, after the premises wer e found locked. No other service was
4
possible after performing a diligent search, the application was served within
the prescribed 5 (five) business days from receipt of a st amped copy of Form
CTR142 in accordance with Regulations 142(2) of the Companies Act a copy
of the Sheriff’s return of service was attached to the Applic ants Affidavit as
proof of service.
3.3 The Applicant’s Attorneys also served the Founding Affidavit on the Second
respondent via email to the email address
Corporatelegalservices@cipc.co.za in terms of the Second Respondent’s
Practice Note 1 of 2021 dated 7 April 2021.
3,3 The 20 business days period within which the First Respondent had to file an
answering affidavit had lapsed, the Applicant then applied for an order by
default. The Applicant submits that there is good cause for the relief in terms
of Section 11(2) of the Companies Act.
3.4. The supporting affidavit deposed to by Caroline Davie the Chief Financial
Officer of the Applicant duly authorised thereto by resolution lodged an
application in terms of Section 160 name of the Companies Act requesting
the Tribunal to grant an order that the name Mondi Holdings(Pty)Limited
(2024/213405/07 be changed on the basis that it is contrary to Section 11 (2)
of the Act .The Application was served by email with annexures ,attached to
the Applicants affidavit .
3.4 To date, neither the First Respondent nor anyone acting on its behalf has
responded to the application nor oppose it.
.3.5 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 order is sought due to the follow reasons:
5
(a) The Applicant is the proprietor of amongst others , various South
African registered trademarks to name a few:
(i) Trademark; MONDI Registration no 1975/04607 Class 16
( ii) Trademark; MONDI Registration no 1985/06462 Class 19
( iii) Trademark; MONDI Registration no 1987/04829 Class1
(iv) Trademark; MONDI Registration no 1991/07120 Class 16
(v) Trademark; MONDI Registration no 1991/07126 Class 16
(vi) Trademark MONDI Registration no 1991/10896 Class 16
The above list is not exhaustive
4.2 The above trademarks are still valid and enforceable; copies of the
trademark register pages were attached to the Applicants affidavit . The
Applicants trademarks have been registered for several decades prior to the
incorporation of the First Respondent.
4.3 It is important to note that the Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
largest paper and packaging companies, MONDI PLC, MONDI PLC and its
subsidiaries is known as the “MONDI GROUP” also operating in South Africa,
as MONDI SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED with registration no
1967/013038/07. The Company was incorporated in South Africa in1967 several
decades before the incorporation of the Firs t Respondent whose incorporation
was in 2024.
4.4 The MONDI trademark has been used extensively by the Applicant globally
and in South Africa.
4.5 The First Respondent ’s Company name MONDI HOLDINGS(PTY) LTD
offends the provision of Section 11(2)(a)(iii) in that it is identical to or the same as
the Applicant’s MONDI trademarks which are registered in the CIPC Registrar of
trademarks and in terms of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 and the registration
6
of the trademarks by the Applicant precedes the incorporation of the First
Respondent by several decades.
5. In support of this application, the Applicant attached supplementary affidavit in
the name of KYLE DESMOND DALTON setting out the facts upon which the
Applicant relies on, and also attached a duly authorised by resolution.
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 First Respondent’s name and the Applicant’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 paper packaging and other
consumables goods under” MONDI ”. The Applicant ‘ s registered
trademarks and name are of exc lusive use by the Applicants and also
protected under the common law , and although the nature of the Fir st
Respondent’s Company is not known or clear , the use of the
Applicant’s name by the First Respondent is confusingly similar to the
Applicant’s name and trademarks . This elevates the risk of confusion
8
between the Applicant’s trademark and the First Respondent’s name,
products, and services in the marketplace.
5.6 I further agree that the confusion and/or deception, can lead to injury to
the Applicant’s business. This is particularly so when it is considered that
the Applicant has absolutely no control whatsoever on the quality and type
of goods sold and services rendered by the Company.
.5.7 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
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
by some significant or striking feature than by a photographic recollection
of the whole. And finally, consideration must be given to the manner in
9
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 First 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 Applicant in contravention of section 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 First 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.
7. 1 The First Respondent is ordered to change its name to one which does not
consist of, or incorporate, the mark MONDI HOLDINGS , or any other
10
mark which is confusingly and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s
MONDI 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