IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case number: CT02628ADJ2026
In the matter between;
ROBERT BOSCH GmbH Applicant
And
BOSCH B Consult (Pty) LIMITED First Respondent
(Registration Number 2024/473934/07)
COMMISSIONER FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY COMMISSION Second Respondent
Presiding Member of the Tribunal: NOMAGCISA CAWE
Date of Decision: 31 August 2026
_________________________________________________________________________
DECISION (Reasons and Order)
_________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
1. This is an application in terms of section 160 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the
Act). The basis of the application is that the First Respondent’s name BOSCH B
CONSULT (PTY) LIMITED is contrary to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act and
should not be permitted to remain in its current form on the Companies register, as it
incorporates, and is confusingly similar to the Applicant’s BOSCH trademarks which
are registered in South Africa.
THE PARTIES
2. The Applicant is Robert Bosch GmbH, a German company, of Robert-Bosch-Platz 1, D-
D-70839 Gerlingen, Germany.
3. The First Respondent is BOSCH B CONSULT (Pty) Limited, a Company duly
incorporated in terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) with registration
number 2024/473934/07 and having its registered address at 14 Kinley Place Unit 4,
Grayling, Westville, KwaZulu-Natal.
4. The Second Respondent is the Commissioner and Intellectual Property Commission
(CIPC), an organ of state established in terms of Section 75 of the Companies Act,
having its principal place of business at DTI CAMPUS, BLOCK F, 77 MEINJTIES
STREET, SUNNYSIDE, PRETORIA, GAUTENG PROVINCE. The Second Respondent
is cited in its official capacity only as the custodian of the companies register. No order
of costs is sought against the Second Respondent, save in the event that it should
oppose this application.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
5. The Applicant instructed Adams and Adams, it’s attorneys of record, to send a letter
of demand to the First Respondent, calling it to cease using the name Bosch B Consult
(Pty) Limited and to undertake to change its name to one which does not
incorporate the words BOSCH. The letter was sent, by email, to Respondent on 21
October 2024.
6. One Ms. Bianca, purporting to act on behalf of the First Respondent, undertook to
change First Respondent’s name to one not incorporating the BOSCH trade mark.
Bianca actually requested the Applicant’s attorneys to assist her in reserving her
company name as “BIANCA B CONSULT”. This was done by the attorneys. Despite
the reservation, the First Respondent’s company name has not been changed to date.
7. On 4 March 2026 the Applicant’s attorneys lodged an application for relief with the
7. On 4 March 2026 the Applicant’s attorneys lodged an application for relief with the
Tribunal, under Sections 11(2) and 160 of the Act, and a copy thereof together with
attachments was served electronically on both the First and Second Respondents, to
their respective registered email addresses. Further, the Sheriff of Westville served the
application on First Respondent’s representative, Ms. Bianca, at the First Respondent’s
business address on 10 March 2026.
8. The First Respondent had until 6 April 2026 to Respond to the application, but to date,
has failed to do so. I am, consequently, satisfied that the Respondent's lack of
participation in these proceedings is not due to lack of service and that this application
is unopposed.
9. Details of the various BOSCH trade marks in various classes, which have been
registered in the Republic of South Africa, are cited in Applicant’s papers and copies
thereof are attached to the papers. I am, accordingly, satisfied that the trademarks are
duly registered.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
10. Dieter Alvermann (Alvermann), in his founding affidavit, submits that the Applicant has
established and owns common law rights in the BOSCH trademarks and that it is in a
position to enforce them in terms of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 194/1993. He
submits further, that the Applicant has acquired a substantial reputation and goodwill in
its BOSCH trademarks, hence its interest in First Respondent’s name.
11. Alvermann contends that the First Respondent's name BOSCH B CONSULT is
confusingly similar to the BOSCH trademarks of the Applicant and that the dominant
and memorable portion of the First Respondent’s name is BOSCH. The remaining
portion of the company's name, namely B CONSULT PTY LTD, is purely descriptive
and, therefore, does not distinguish the First Respondent’s company name from that of
the Applicant's. As such there exists a reasonable likelihood of confusion and/or
deception arising amongst members of the public between the two.
12. The Applicant requests the Companies Tribunal to make an order that the First
Respondent be ordered to change its company name to one that does not consist of, or
incorporate, and is not confusingly and /or deceptively similar to its BOSCH trademarks
or any other mark which is confusingly and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant's
name and trade mark.
APPLICABLE LAW
13. Section 11 (2) of the Act
This section is primarily about protection against infringement of a registered
company name or trademark, and reads as follows:
" Section 11 (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) a name
part of a group of companies using similar names; (ii) a name
registered for the use of a person as a business name in
terms of the Business Names Act, 1960 (Act No. 27 of 1960);
(ii) 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); or
(b) a mark, word or expression the use of which is restricted or
protected in terms of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1941 (Act No. 17
of 1941), except to the extent permitted by or in terms of that Act;
(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;
(ii) is an organ of state or a court, or is operated, sponsored,
supported or endorsed by the State or by any organ of state
or a court;
(iii) is owned, managed or conducted by a person or persons
having any particular educational designation or who is a
regulated person or entity; (iv) is owned, operated,
sponsored, supported or endorsed by, or enjoys the
patronage of, any—
(aa) foreign state, head of state, head of government,
government or administration or any department of such
a government or administration; or (bb) international
organisation;"
14. The Applicant seeks remedies in terms of Section 160 of the Act
Section 160 states that:-
(1) a person to whom a notice is delivered in terms of section 12(3) or
section14(3) or 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 satisfies the requirements
of section 11.
(2) An application in terms of subsection (1) may be made—
within three months after the date of a notice contemplated in subsection
(1), if the applicant received such a notice; or
(a) 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, in any other
case.
(3) After considering an application made in terms of subsection (1), and any submissions
by the applicant and any other person with an interest in the name or proposed name that
is the subject of the application, the Companies Tribunal—
(a) must make a determination whether that name satisfies the requirements of
section 11; and
(b) may make an administrative order directing—
(i) the Commission to—
(b) may make an administrative order directing—
(i) the Commission to—
(aa) reserve a contested name for the applicant in terms of section 12; (bb)
register the contested name, or
amended name as the name of a company; or
(cc) cancel a reservation granted in terms of section 12, if the reserved name
has not been used by the person entitled to it; or
(ii) a company to choose a new name, and to file a notice of an amendment to its Memorandum
of Incorporation, within a period and on any conditions that the Tribunal considers just,
equitable and expedient in the circumstances, including a condition exempting the company
from the requirement to pay the prescribed fee for filing the notice of amendment
contemplated in this Section.(emphasis added).
15. In 1948 1 the courts considered it appropriate to state that "the court must not only
consider the marks when placed side-by-side but must have regard to the position of a person
who might at one time see or hear one of the marks and later, possibly with an imperfect
recollection of the mark, come across the other mark".
16. In more recent times, in an unreported judgement 2 the court said: " If one compares
the name Kentron which the applicant has used and is still using with the name
Kentronics which the first respondent is using, its is clear that there is a visual and
phonetic difference. It is, however, also obvious that there are similarities. The name
Kentronics incorporates the whole of the applicants trading style Kentron."
17. In 2001 the court said: 3 "the decision involves a value judgment and that the 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 marks are to be used together in a normal
and fair manner, in the ordinary course of business".
EVALUATION
18. The dominant word in the Applicant's name is BOSCH and the dominant part of the
First Respondent’s name is BOSCH. The dominant words are the same, and if
members of the public merely look at the names of the two different entities, there is a
real likelihood that they will be misled by the similarity of the names.
19. Members of the public may be confused or deceived into believing that the business
of the Applicant is linked to, or associated with, that of the First Respondent and are
"horses from the same stable".
FINDINGS
20. It is my view that the First Respondent
falsely implies or suggests, and reasonably misleads
a person to believe incorrectly, that the Respondent is part of, or associated with the
Applicant's well-known trademarks, as contemplated in section 35 of the Trade Marks Act.
21. When the name of the First Respondent, and the trademark word BOSCH are placed
side-by-side and with regard to the position of a person who might at one time see or
hear one of the marks and later possibly with an imperfect recollection of that mark,
come across the other mark, I have no doubt that the name and the mark would not
1 AMERICAN CHEWING PRODUCTS CORPORATION v AMERICAN CHICLE COMPANY 1948 (2) SA 736 (A)
2 DENEL (PTY) LTD AND KENTRONICS (PTY) LTD AND THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES TDP CASE NO 213527/2000
(unreported)
3 COWBELL AG V ICS HOLDINGS 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA)
only be confusingly similar, but identical. That person would mistake the one for the
other.
22. The word BOSCH in the First Respondent's name, incorporates the whole of the
Applicant's BOSCH trademark and I am certain that the Applicant will be prejudiced if
I do not make an order that the First Respondent change its name to one that does not
incorporate and/or is not confusingly and or deceptively similar to the Applicant's
trademarks. I am convinced that if the two names are compared, it can properly be said
that there is a reasonable likelihood of confusion if both names are to be used together
in a normal and fair manner in the ordinary course of business. It is my view that the
dominant word BOSCH in the name of the First Respondent, is not only the same and
confusingly similar to the dominant word BOSCH in the name of the Applicant but is
identical and could falsely imply or suggest that the Applicant is associated with the
First Respondent. This would reasonably mislead a person to believe incorrectly that
the applicant is associated with the First Respondent.
23. I proceed to make a default order in the following terms
ORDER
24. The First Respondent is directed to change its name to one which does not incorporate
and/or is not confusingly and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s BOSCH
trademarks.
25. The CIPC is authorised to change the name of the First Respondent, in the event of the
First Respondent not complying with paragraph 27 above within 60 days from receipt of
this order, to its registration number (2024/473934/07) followed by (Pty) Ltd as the First
Respondent’s interim name on the companies register.
26. The First Respondent must file a notice of amendment of its Memorandum of
Incorporation, within 60 days of receipt of this order.
27. The instant Order must be served on the First Respondent by the Tribunal’s Recording
Officer.
28. As the First Respondent has not wasted costs in opposing the matter, I do not make a
costs order against it.
costs order against it.
Nomagcisa Cawe
MEMBER OF COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA)