1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: CT02811ADJ2026
In the matter between:
Scania CV Aktiebolag (PTY) LTD
And
Scania Group Southern Africa (PTY) LTD
(Registration number: 2026/126041/07) First Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Second Respondent
Presiding member: Nomagcisa Cawe
Date of decision: 21 August 2026
DECISION (Reasons and Order)
1. The Applicant has lodged an application in terms of sections 160(1) and
160(2)(b) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Act”), read with Regulation 142 of the
Companies Regulations 2011, promulgated under GN R351 in GG 34239 of 26 April
2011 (“the Regulations”), seeking an order directing the First Respondent to change
its name, on the basis that it contravenes the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act.
The Applicant further seeks a default order on the basis that the First Respondent has
failed to file an answering affidavit/statement within the prescribed period.
2
2. The Tribunal has considered the Notices of Motion (Forms CTR 142 and CTR
145), the Applicant’s Supporting and the delivery report submitted by Sumayya Khan
in support of the default application.
BACKGROUND
3. The Applicant is Scania CV Aktiebolag, a Swedish company duly incorporated and
registered in accordance with the company laws of Sweden, and having its address
at: Vagnmakarvagen 1, S E -151 87, Sdertatje, Sweden. The Applicant has a
subsidiary company , Scania South Africa, whose address is : 14
th Avenue and
Porgieter Road, Weltervreden Park, Roodepoort, Gauteng.
4. The Applicant’s main business is the supply of transport solutions across 100
countries in various classes and trade mark registrations.
5. The First Respondent, Scania Group Southern African ( Pty) Ltd , is a South
African company incorporated in 2026 under the company laws of South Africa, and
having the same registered address as that of the Applicant’s South African
subsidiary (Scania South Africa).
6. The Second Respondent is the Registrar of Companies, having its registered
address at the DTI Campus, Block F, Meinjties Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria. The
Second Respondent is cited for notice purposes only and no relief is sought against it
unless it opposes this application.
7. Mikael Eurenius, for the Applicant submits , in his founding affidavit, that the
First Respondent’s name “ Scania Group Southern Africa” does not meet the
requirements of Section 11of the Act, in that it is confusingly similar to Applicant’s
registered trade mark “Scania CV Aktiebolag ”. It is even more similar to Applicant’s
subsidiary, Scania South Africa, and falsely implies an association with Applicant.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
8. Section 11(2) of the Companies Act provides, inter alia, that:
3
(a) A company name must not be the same as or confusingly similar to the
name of another company, registered trade mark or well -known mark (section
11(2)(a) and (b)); and
(b) 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
associated with another person or entity (section 11 (2)(c))
9. Section 160(1) permits a person with an interest in a company name to apply
to the Companies Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for a determination as to whether it
satisfies section 11(2).
10. Such application may be made on good cause shown at any time after the
date of the reservation or registration of the name that is the subject of the application
( section 160(2).
11. The Tribunal, after considering such application (“ and any submissions by the
applicant and any other person with an interest in the proposed name that is the
subject of the application”) may make a determination whether the name complies
with the requirements of Section 11of the Act.
12. In the event of non- compliance, the Tribunal may, under section 160(3)( b)(ii),
order that the name be changed, and that the company file a notice of amendment of
its Memorandum of Incorporation within a period and on any conditions that the
Tribunal considers just, equitable and expedient in the circumstances.
13. Regulation 153 allows the Tribunal to grant default relief where the respondent
has failed to oppose the application despite proper service. In Regulations (1) and
(2) it states that:
(1) “If a person served with an initiating document has not filed a response
within the prescribed period, the initiating party may apply to have the order, as
applied for, issued against that person by the Tribunal.
4
(2) on such application, “the Tribunal may make an appropriate order - (a)
after it has heard any required evidence concerning the motion; and (b) if it is
satisfied that the notice or application was adequately served “
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
14. The principles relevant to assessing confusing similarity between company
names and trade marks are well settled. The test for “confusing similarity” is
analogous to that applied in the law of passing- off. The inquiry centers on whether
there is “a reasonable likelihood that ordinary members of the public . . . may be
confused or deceived into believing that the goods or merchandise of the former are
those of the latter or are connected therewith” (Adidas AG & Another v Pepkor Retail
Ltd [2013] ZASCA 3 at para 28). This must be determined with regard being had to
all relevant circumstances ( Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty)
Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 640G “Plascon-Evans”).
15. In Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA) at para 10, Harms JA
noted that a value judgment is required in determining the likelihood of deceit or
confusion arising from similar marks, and quoted the following dictum from SmithKline
Beecham Consumer Brands (Pty) Ltd (formerly known as Beecham South Africa (Pty)
Ltd) v Unilever plc 1995 (2) SA 903 (A) at 912H:
“[t]he ultimate test is . . . whether on a comparison of the two marks it can
properly be said that there is a reasonable likelihood of confusion if both are to
be used together in a normal and fair manner, in the ordinary course of
business.”
16. In the present case, the focus is not on whether the two names are identical,
but whether they are confusingly similar, and whether the First Respondent’s name
would falsely imply or suggest an association with the Applicant. It is noteworthy that
not only are the names of the parties similar but the First Respondent has registered
not only are the names of the parties similar but the First Respondent has registered
its business address as that of the Applicant’s South African subsidiary. This creates a
false impression that the subsidiary and the First Respondent are the same company.
5
17. There is a very strong, and certainly reasonable, likelihood of confusion when
one inquires as to whether the First Respondent’s name is confusingly similar to the
Applicant’s name (as prohibited by the Act), which would also cause members of the
public to reasonably assume some association between the two.
18. In Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC 2001 (1) SA 844 (SCA), the court held that a
mark is confusingly similar to another if it has a “marked resemblance or likeness”,
and that this is particularly so where the dominant portion of the mark is replicated. In
the present case the First Respondent’s name incorporates the words “GROUP
SOUTHERN AFRICA ” after the words “ SCANIA ”, which do not distinguish it from
the Applicant. This would certainly lead to confusion among the public as the
additional words in First Respondent’s name do not distinguish it from Applicant’s.
19. The point was crisply made by Eloff J in Miriam Glick Trading v Clicks Stores
(Transvaal) (Pty) Ltd 1979 (2) SA 290 (T) at 295:
“The trade names must be considered from the visual, phonetic and ideological
points of view... not side by side, but as a member of the public would see
them, one after the other, with a time lapse in between and having regard to
the likelihood of imperfect recollection.”
20. The average person encountering the name “ SCANIA GROUP SOUTHERN
AFRICA ” is likely to draw conclusions based on an overall impression and their
familiarity with the SCANIA SOUTH AFRICA brand. The overall impression created by
the First Respondent’s name is one of affiliation.
21. As was stated by Harms JA in Adidas AG v Pepkor Retail Ltd [2013] ZASCA 3:
“[I]t is sufficient if the probabilities establish that a substantial number of
persons who may be interested or concerned in the relevant class of goods will
be deceived or confused.” (para 20)
6
22. In my view, in the present matter, the First Respondent’s name may
reasonably mislead consumers into believing that it is associated with, endorsed by,
or a subsidiary of the Applicant, contrary to section 11(2)(c).
23. The Applicant has established that the First Respondent’s name contravenes
sections 11(2)(b) and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Companies Act, and has also demonstrated
good cause in bringing the present application, as contemplated in section 160(2)(b).
In view of this I find in Applicant’s favour and its application succeeds.
ORDER
24.Accordingly, the following order is made:
24.1 The First Respondent’s registered company name, “ SCANIA GROUP
SOUTHERN AFRICA (PTY) LTD”, does not satisfy the requirements of sections
11(2)(b), and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
24.2 The First Respondent is directed to:-
(a) choose a new name which does not incorporate, and is not confusingly
similar to, the Applicant’s “ SCANIA/SCANIA SOUTHERN AFRICA ” trade
mark, nor so similar as to create an overall impression of association;
(b) change its registered business address and its director’s , (William
Junior Nkomo), to one that does not incorporate all or any element of
Applicant’s South African business address; and
(c) further, file a notice of amendment to its Memorandum of Incorporation
within 60 calendar days of the date of service of this order.
24.3 In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with paragraph 24 .2 (a)
above, the Second Respondent is directed, in terms of section 160(3)(b)(ii) read with
section 14(2) of the Act, to record the First Respondent’s company name on the
companies register as its registration number, (2026/126041/07) followed by (Pty) Ltd.
7
24.4 The Tribunal’s Recording Officer (Registrar) is directed to serve this order on
the First and Second Respondents.
24.5 No order as to costs is made as the matter was unopposed.
Nomagcisa Cawe:
Member of the Companies Tribunal