1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: CT02845ADJ2026
In the matter between:
SUN INTERNATIONAL (SOUTH AFRICA) LIMITED Applicant
And
TIMES SQUARE HOTEL (PTY) LTD First Respondent
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION Second Respondent
Presiding member:
Date of decision:
Richard Bradstreet
1 September 2026
DECISION (Reasons and Order)
1. This application concerns a company name objection brought in terms of
section 160 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“ the Act ”), in which the
Applicant seeks a determination that the First Respondent’s name does not
2
satisfy the requirements of section 11 of the Act. The Applicant further seeks
a default order in terms of regulation 153 of the Companies Regulations 2011,
the First Respondent having failed to file an answering affidavit in response to
the application.
2. The Applicant, Sun International (South Africa) Limited (“ SISA”), is a public
company incorporated under the laws of the Republic, with its registered office
at 6 Sandown Valley Crescent, Sandown, Sandton. It is a wholly -owned
subsidiary of Sun International Limited and forms part of the Sun International
Limited group, which develops and operates casinos, hotels and entertainment
complexes in South Africa and elsewhere. Among the Applicant’s operations is
its TIME SQUARE casino and entertainment complex at Menlyn Maine,
Pretoria, which opened in April 2017, and within which the Applicant operates
a hotel that, on 5 February 2026, was renamed from “The Maslow Time
Square” to “Time Square Hotel”.
3. The First Respondent is Times Square Hotel (Pty) Ltd, a company
incorporated on 19 August 2024 under registration number 2024/511356/07,
with its registered office at 25 Zenith Drive, Umhlanga, Durban. Its principal
business is not disclosed on the register.
4. The Second Respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission (“the Commission”), the entity responsible for the registration of
3
companies and the maintenance of the companies register. The Applicant
joins the Commission only in so far as the consequential relief in paragraph 3
of its notice of motion is concerned, and seeks no costs against it.
5. The basis of the objection is that the First Respondent’s name is confusingly
similar to, and wholly incorporates, the Applicant’s registered and well -known
TIME SQUARE trade mark, and that the name falsely implies or would
reasonably mislead a person into believing that the First Respondent is
associated with the Applicant. The objection is founded on sections 11(2)( a),
11(2)(b) and 11(2)(c)(i) of the Act.
DEFAULT RELIEF
6. The Main Application was filed on 13 July 2026 and the Tribunal allocated
case number CT02845ADJ2026 to the matter on that date. On 13 July 2026
the Applicant’s attorneys served a copy of the application on the First
Respondent by e-mail, addressed to the electronic addresses recorded for the
First Respondent and its director, and copied the Commission. On 15 July
2026, the Deputy Sheriff for Inanda District 2 served a copy of the application
at the First Respondent’s registered office at 25 Zenith Drive, Umhlanga, by
delivering it to a person apparently in charge of the premises, as reflected in
the return of service dated 16 July 2026.
4
7. The Sheriff recorded that the person served advised that the First Respondent
was unknown at the address and that the premises were presently occupied
by another business. That does not detract from the adequacy of the service.
Service at a company’s registered office is service duly effected, and a
company that records an address at which it cannot be found bears the
consequences of having done so. In any event, the papers were also
transmitted electronically to the addresses recorded for the First Respondent
and its director, and the founding papers disclose a sustained course of
correspondence and telephonic engagement with the director, Ms Dorpathy
Singh, between September 2025 and March 2026, during the course of which
the First Respondent was repeatedly called upon to change its name. The
First Respondent clearly had knowledge of the Applicant’s objection.
8. In terms of regulation 143, the First Respondent had until 13 August 2026 to
serve and file an answer. It did not do so. The Applicant filed its application for
a default order on 19 August 2026. I am satisfied that there has been
adequate service, and thus compliance with regulation 153(2)( b). It also
appears that the Applicant passes the “good cause” test in that a reasonable
explanation is given as to why the application should be heard by the Tribunal,
and there has been no undue delay in bringing the application. The matter
may therefore be determined on the papers, and on a default basis.
APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
5
9. Section 160(1) of the Act provides that a person with an interest in the name of
a company may apply to the Tribunal for a determination whether the name
satisfies the requirements of the Act. The Applicant, as the proprietor of the
registered TIME SQUARE trade mark and of a substantial reputation in that
mark, plainly has such an interest. In terms of section 160(2)( b), such an
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”, and, for the reasons given above, good cause has been shown.
10. Section 11(2) of the Act provides, so far as is relevant, that the name of a
company must –
(a) not be the same as 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, or a well -known trade mark
as contemplated in section 35 of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993
(section 11(2)(a)(iii));
(b) not be confusingly similar to such a mark (section 11(2)(b)); and
(c) 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 (section 11(2)(c)(i)).
6
Confusing similarity
11. “Similar”, for the purposes of section 11(2)( b), means “having a marked
resemblance or likeness” (Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC 2001 (1) SA 844
(SCA) para 14). The comparison of a company name with a trade mark
involves a value judgment, and the marks are to be considered as they would
be encountered in normal and fair use in the ordinary course of business
(Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings Ltd 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA) para 10; SmithKline
Beecham Consumer Brands (Pty) Ltd v Unilever plc 1995 (2) SA 903 (A) at
912H).
12. The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that ordinary members of
the public, or a substantial section thereof, may be confused or deceived into
believing that the goods, services or business of the one are those of, or are
connected with, the other ( Adidas AG v Pepkor Retail Ltd (187/12) [2013]
ZASCA 3; 2013 BIP 203 (SCA) para 28; Capital Estate and General Agencies
(Pty) Ltd v Holiday Inns Inc 1977 (2) SA 916 (A) at 929C).
13. The comparison is made through the eyes of the notional ordinary customer of
the goods or services in question, who is possessed of imperfect recollection
and who is not engaged in a careful side- by-side analysis, and account must
be taken of the class of persons likely to be the customers of the goods or
services concerned (Reckitt & Colman SA (Pty) Ltd v SC Johnson & Son SA
7
(Pty) Ltd 1993 (2) SA 307 (A) at 315F –G). The onus of establishing the
objection rests on the Applicant (Bata supra para 8).
ANALYSIS
14. The Applicant relies upon its registration, in South Africa, of the trade mark
TIME SQUARE in class es 41 and 43, each filed on 29 April 2013, together
with two composite SUN TIME SQUARE marks registered in 2016. It also
relies on a substantial common- law reputation in the TIME SQUARE mark,
and on its status as a well-known mark.
15. The most relevant comparison for present purposes is that between the
Applicant’s registered word mark TIME SQUARE and the First Respondent’s
name, Times Square Hotel (Pty) Ltd, bearing in mind that the class 43
registration covers “services for providing food and drink; temporary
accommodation”, and the word “Hotel” in the First Respondent’s name signals
precisely that field of activity.
16. The dominant and memorable element of the First Respondent’s name is the
expression “Times Square”. The corporate suffix “(Pty) Ltd” performs no
distinguishing work; it does no more than denote the form of the entity. The
word “Hotel” is descriptive of the service that a hotel provides, and adds little
distinctiveness. Far from setting the name apart from the Applicant’s mark,
8
the addition of that word draws the name closer to the name under which the
Applicant itself trades its hotel within the TIME SQUARE precinct, namely
“Time Square Hotel”. What remains, and what does the work of identifying the
undertaking, is “Times Square”.
17. Set against the Applicant’s mark, the only difference in that dominant element
is the interposed letter “s” – i.e. “Time Square” against “Times Square”. That
difference is insignificant. Visually the two are all but indistinguishable. Aurally
they are, in ordinary speech, near -homophones: spoken in the course of an
ordinary enquiry or recommendation, “Time Square” and “Times Square”
would seldom be told apart. Conceptually they convey the same idea. The
single added letter does not shift the dominant impression created by the
name, and it is upon the dominant impression, imperfectly recollected, that the
ordinary customer acts.
18. The context in which that comparison falls to be made heightens, rather than
reduces, the likelihood of confusion: the First Respondent’s name presents
itself as that of a hotel, and hotel services (i.e. temporary accommodation) fall
squarely within the Applicant’s class 43 registration and within the field in
which the Applicant in fact trades under a near -identical name. The First
Respondent’s principal business is not disclose on the register, so there is
nothing to confine its activities to some field remote from the Applicant’s. In
any event, its name expressly presents itself as a hotel. A member of the
public encountering “Times Square Hotel” would have no reason to think that it
9
was not a hotel operated by, licensed by, or otherwise connected with the
Applicant’s well-known TIME SQUARE undertaking. The risk of confusion is,
in my view, real and substantial.
19. That conclusion is fortified by an earlier decision of this Tribunal concerning
materially the same issue, in proceedings that were opposed and in which
both parties had the opportunity fully to advance their respective cases before
the presiding member. In the objections brought by this same Applicant
against Times Square Ballito (Pty) Ltd, Times Square PMB (Pty) Ltd and
Times Square Cape (Pty) Ltd (CT00924ADJ2022, CT00925ADJ2022 and
CT00926ADJ2022, decided on 18 September 2022), the Tribunal held that the
addition of the letter “s” does not distinguish a “Times Square” name from the
Applicant’s TIME SQUARE trade mark, the geographical additions being non-
distinctive (para 5.2 et seq). The reasoning applies with equal, if not greater,
force here, where the only addition to the offending name is the descriptive
word “Hotel” – a word that describes the very service for which the Applicant’s
mark is registered and used.
20. The Applicant’s reputation in the TIME SQUARE mark, built over more than a
decade of use and substantial promotional expenditure, further reinforces the
position. The better known the mark, the more readily will a member of the
public confronted with a near -identical name assume a connection with its
proprietor.
10
21. Taking these considerations together, and applying the value judgment
required by Cowbell supra, I am satisfied that the First Respondent’s name is
confusingly similar to the Applicant’s registered TIME SQUARE trade mark,
contrary to section 11(2)( b) of the Act. It follows, therefore, that section
11(2)(c)(i) is also contravened. A member of the public confronted with the
name “Times Square Hotel”, in the same field of temporary accommodation in
which the Applicant trades under the name Time Square Hotel, and given the
reputation of the Applicant’s mark, is reasonably likely to draw the inference
that the First Respondent is a part of, an extension of, or otherwise associated
with, the Applicant. That inference would be incorrect. The First
Respondent’s name is therefore such as would reasonably mislead a person
into believing incorrectly that it is associated with the Applicant.
22. As to costs, the Applicant seeks an award under regulation 156. The power to
award costs is one that the Tribunal exercises sparingly, and is generally
reserved for cases of misconduct or abuse of its process. Although the First
Respondent has engaged neither with the Applicant’s correspondence nor
with these proceedings, its conduct amounts to non-participation rather than to
any abuse of the Tribunal’s process, and I do not consider that this is a case in
which a costs order is warranted. I make no order as to costs.
ORDER
11
23. In the result, I make the following order:
(a) The application for a default order in terms of regulation 153 is granted.
(b) It is determined that the name of the First Respondent, Times Square
Hotel (Pty) Ltd, does not satisfy the requirements of section 11(2)( b)
and section 11(2)(c)(i) of the Act.
(c) The First Respondent is directed, in terms of section 160(3)( b)(ii) of the
Act, to –
(i) choose a new name that does not consist of, incorporate, or is
not confusingly similar to, the trade mark TIME SQUARE, or any
other mark confusingly or deceptively similar to it, and that does
not imply an association with the Applicant; and
(ii) file a notice of amendment to its Memorandum of Incorporation
giving effect to that change, within 3 (three) months of the date of
service of this order.
(d) In the event that the First Respondent fails to comply with paragraph (c)
within the period stated, the Second Respondent is directed, in terms of
section 160(3)( b)(ii) read with section 14(2) of the Act, to change the
First Respondent’s name on the companies register to its registration
number, 2024/511356/07, followed by the expression “(Pty) Ltd”, as the
First Respondent’s interim name.
12
(e) This order must be served on the Respondents by the Recording
Officer (Registrar) of the Tribunal.
Richard Bradstreet
Member of the Companies Tribunal
1 September 2026