1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: CT02711ADJ2026
In the matter between:
INVESTEC BANK LIMITED
(1969/004763/06) APPLICANT
and
TST INVESTEC (PTY) LTD
(2025/386542/07) FIRST RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER OF THE COMPANIES AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION SECOND RESPONDENT
Presiding Member of the Companies Tribunal: DR MINAH TONG-MONGALO
Date of Decision: 21 August 2026
DECISION (Reasons and an Order)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an application by Investec Bank Limited (the Applicant) in terms of section 160 of
the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) for a determination that the registered name of
the First Respondent, TST Investec (Pty) Ltd, does not satisfy the requirements of section
11 of the Act.
2. The Applicant relies on its earlier registered INVESTEC trade marks and contends that
the First Respondent's name is confusingly similar to those marks and is likely to mislead
members of the public into believing that the First Respondent is part of, or associated
with, the Applicant.
3. The First Respondent has not delivered an answer. The Applicant accordingly seeks a
default order in terms of regulation 153 of the Companies Regulations, 2011 (the
Regulations).
2
B. THE PARTIES
4. The Applicant is Investec Bank Limited, a company incorporated and registered in
accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa under registration number
1969/004763/06, with its registered place of business at 100 Grayston Drive, Sandown,
Sandton, 2196.
5. The First Respondent is TST Investec (Pty) Ltd, a private company incorporated under
registration number 2025/386542/07, with its registered address at Stand No. 732,
Ramotshinyadi Village, Tzaneen, Limpopo, 0850.
6. The Second Respondent is the Commissioner of the Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission, appointed in terms of section 189 of the Act. The Second Respondent is
cited in an official capacity because the Commission maintains the companies register
and may be required to give effect to the administrative order made below.
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND DEFAULT
7. The Applicant filed its Form CTR 142 application for relief on 24 April 2026. The
application is supported by the founding affidavit of Yeoshaan Ramdutt, who is
responsible for managing the Applicant's trade mark portfolio.
8. The date-stamped Form CTR 142 and the supporting papers were served by email on the
First Respondent and the Second Respondent on 27 April 2026. The address used for the
First Respondent was the email address recorded for its sole director in the incorporation
records and the same address from which that director had previously communicated with
the Applicant's attorneys.
9. Regulation 143(1) afforded the First Respondent 20 business days after service within
which to deliver an answer. That period expired without an answer. On 5 June 2026, the
Tribunal confirmed to the Applicant's attorneys that no answering affidavit had been
received. The Applicant thereafter applied for a default order, supported by the affidavit
of Gaelyn Clare Scott sworn on 12 June 2026.
10. The prior correspondence demonstrates that the email address was active and controlled
10. The prior correspondence demonstrates that the email address was active and controlled
by the First Respondent's sole director. Having regard to the sworn evidence of delivery,
the previous use of that address by the director, and the absence of any contrary evidence,
I am satisfied that the initiating application was adequately served for purposes of
regulation 153(2)(b). The default application is therefore procedurally competent.
3
D. THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. The Applicant is the proprietor of numerous South African trade mark registrations
incorporating or comprising INVESTEC. They include, among others, INVESTEC under
registration numbers 1987/04228 in class 36, 1987/05010 in class 35, 2000/11640 in class
42 and 2015/31113 in class 36, as well as registrations for INVESTEC BANK and related
composite marks. The registrations predate the incorporation of the First Respondent by
many years.
12. The evidence establishes substantial goodwill and reputation in INVESTEC. The
Applicant commenced trading under that mark in South Africa in 1974, has an extensive
international presence, and has for many years incurred substantial expenditure promoting
services under the mark. The evidence also records substantial South African revenue and
consistent recognition of INVESTEC among South Africa's most valuable brands.
13. The Applicant became aware of the First Respondent during December 2025. Its
attorneys sent a letter of demand on 18 December 2025, setting out the Applicant's rights
and calling on the First Respondent to change its name to one that did not incorporate
INVESTEC or a confusingly similar mark.
14. On 18 January 2026, the First Respondent's sole director replied and requested a
telephone discussion. During a call on 20 January 2026, the director stated that the First
Respondent was engaged in agro -processing or food production and undertook that it
would change its name to one not incorporating INVESTEC or anything similar, and
cease all use of the impugned name, within three weeks, by 10 February 2026.
15. Despite that undertaking and further follow -up, the First Respondent did not change its
name. The Applicant authorised the present proceedings on 16 March 2026 and filed the
application on 24 April 2026. The evidence therefore shows sustained efforts to resolve
the matter without adjudication and no material delay in approaching the Tribunal.
E. THE APPLICABLE LAW
E. THE APPLICABLE LAW
16. Section 160(1) of the Act permits any person with an interest in the name of a company to
apply to the Tribunal, in the prescribed manner and form, for a determination whether the
name satisfies the requirements of the Act. Under section 160(2)(b), such an application
may be made on good cause shown at any time after registration of the impugned name.
17. Section 11(2)(a)(iii) provides that a company name must not be the same as a registered
trade mark belonging to another person, or a well -known trade mark contemplated in
section 35 of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993, unless the registered owner has consented
in writing to use of the mark as the company name.
4
18. Section 11(2)(b)(iii) provides, in material part, that a company name must not be
confusingly similar to a trade mark contemplated in section 11(2)(a)(iii), unless the
company is the registered owner of the mark or is authorised by the registered owner to
use it.
19. Section 11(2)(c)(i) further provides that a company name must not 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, any other person or entity.
20. The word 'similar' denotes a marked resemblance or likeness, and the impugned name
should immediately bring the protected name or mark to mind: Bata Ltd v Face Fashions
CC.
1 The question of confusing similarity is a value judgment based on the overall
impression produced by the names and the reasonable likelihood that ordinary members
of the public may believe that the entities are connected.
2
21. In terms of section 160(3)(a), the Tribunal must determine whether the impugned name
satisfies the Act. If it does not, section 160(3)(b)(ii) permits an administrative order
directing the company to choose a new name and file a notice of amendment to its
Memorandum of Incorporation within a period and on conditions that the Tribunal
considers just, equitable and expedient.
22. Regulation 153(1) allows the initiating party to apply for the order sought when a person
served with an initiating document has not responded within the prescribed period. Under
regulation 153(2), the Tribunal may make an appropriate order after hearing any evidence
it requires and if satisfied that the initiating application was adequately served.
23. Regulation 156(1) provides that, upon making an order, the Tribunal may make an order
for costs. If costs are awarded, regulation 156(2) regulates their taxation according to the
applicable High Court tariff.
F. ANALYSIS
24. The Applicant's registered trade marks and substantial commercial interest in INVESTEC
24. The Applicant's registered trade marks and substantial commercial interest in INVESTEC
establish a direct and substantial interest in the First Respondent's name. Good cause is
also established: the Applicant acted within a reasonable period after learning of the
registration, sought voluntary compliance, allowed the First Respondent repeated
1 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA).
2 Capital Estate and General Agencies (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holiday Inns Inc. and Others 1977 (2) SA 916
(A) at 929; Yuppichef Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Yuppie Gadgets Holdings (Pty) Ltd (1088/2015) [2016] ZASCA 118;
2016 BIP 269 (SCA) (15 September 2016) para 26.
5
opportunities to change its name, and approached the Tribunal only when those efforts
failed.
25. Section 11(2)(a)(iii) is not the appropriate basis for determination. The First Respondent's
full name is not the same as the stand -alone INVESTEC mark because it includes the
letters TST and the corporate suffix. The dispositive provisions are sections 11(2)(b)(iii)
and 11(2)(c)(i).
26. INVESTEC is an invented and inherently distinctive word. It is reproduced, without
alteration, as the dominant and memorable element of TST Investec (Pty) Ltd. The
statutory suffix merely describes the First Respondent's corporate form and has no
distinguishing force.
27. The prefix TST is a short initialism and does not alter the visual, phonetic or conceptual
identity of INVESTEC within the First Respondent's name. Considered as a whole and as
a matter of first impression, TST Investec immediately brings the Applicant and its mark
to mind.
28. The fact that the First Respondent says that it operates in agro -processing or food
production does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion or misleading association. The
protection in section 11 concerns the company name. Members of the public could
reasonably understand TST to identify a division, project, client platform, financed
venture or affiliate within the Applicant's broader corporate or investment activities.
29. The conclusion is reinforced by Investec Bank Limited v Travis Invest Tech (Pty) Ltd and
Another, CT02342ADJ2025 (7 January 2026), paras 24-27, where the Tribunal found that
the less exact expression 'Invest Tech' was sufficiently similar to INVESTEC to create a
misleading association. In the present matter, the Applicant's mark is incorporated exactly
and in full.
30. There is no evidence that the Applicant consented to or authorised use of INVESTEC.
The First Respondent's own undertaking to change the name is inconsistent with any
claim of authorisation and has not been followed by compliance. I am accordingly
claim of authorisation and has not been followed by compliance. I am accordingly
satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the name TST Investec (Pty) Ltd is
confusingly similar to the Applicant's INVESTEC trade marks and is such as would
reasonably mislead a person to believe incorrectly that the First Respondent is part of, or
associated with, the Applicant.
6
G. DEFAULT RELIEF AND COSTS
31. The First Respondent has elected not to place any evidence before the Tribunal. The
Applicant has established its entitlement to a default order. The Form CTR 142 seeks
substitution of the interim name if the First Respondent fails to change its name within
three months, while paragraph 8.2 of the founding affidavit refers to one month. Because
default relief should not be more onerous than the clearest period stated in the initiating
form, and because section 160(3)(b)(ii) permits the Tribunal to determine a just and
equitable period, three months from service of this order is appropriate.
32. The Applicant expressly seeks costs. This matter is distinguishable from an ordinary
unopposed name objection in which no pre -litigation engagement occurred. The First
Respondent engaged with the demand, gave an unequivocal undertaking to change its
name and then failed both to perform and to oppose the proceedings. That conduct made
the application necessary. Consistently with regulation 156(1) and the approach in Efekto
Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Efekto Chemical Supply Agency International (Pty) Ltd,
CT013Jun2016 (31 August 2016), para 14, an order for the Applicant's agreed or taxed
party-and-party costs is just.
H. ORDER
33. In the result, the following order is made:
34. The First Respondent's name, TST Investec (Pty) Ltd, does not satisfy the requirements of
sections 11(2)(b)(iii) and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
35. The First Respondent is directed to choose a new name that does not incorporate
INVESTEC and is not confusingly similar to, or misleadingly suggestive of an
association with, the Applicant's INVESTEC trade marks, and to file the required notice
of amendment to its Memorandum of Incorporation with the Second Respondent within
three months of service of this decision and order on the First Respondent.
36. If the First Respondent fails to comply with paragraph 33.2, the Second Respondent is
36. If the First Respondent fails to comply with paragraph 33.2, the Second Respondent is
directed to record the First Respondent's registration number followed by '(Pty) Ltd',
namely '2025/386542/07 (Pty) Ltd', as the First Respondent's interim company name on
the companies register.
37. The Recording Officer of the Companies Tribunal is directed to serve this decision and
order on the parties.
38. The First Respondent is directed to pay the Applicant's costs of the application on the
party-and-party scale, to be taxed in accordance with the applicable High Court tariff if
not agreed.
7
Dr MINAH TONG-MONGALO
Member of the Companies Tribunal