LEGISLATION – COMPANIES ACT 28 OF 2004 – S 51(2) – TWO COMPANIES HAVING SIMILAR NAMES – REGISTRAR OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ORDERING APPLICANT COMPANY TO CHANGE ITS NAME. First St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission v Registrar of Companies NAHCMD (20 APRIL 2023)

The applicant is registered in terms of the Companies Act 28 of 2004 under the name of First St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission. Thereafter, the third respondent, which is registered under the name of St John’s Apostolic Faith Mission Church, lodged an objection with the Registrar of Business and Industrial Property, on the basis that the applicant’s name was similar to its name and therefore ‘undesirable’. The registrar upheld the third respondent’s objection and ordered the applicant to change its name. The applicant thereupon applied to this court for an order reviewing and setting aside the registrar’s decision.

Analysis by Usiku J:

‘[38]    In my opinion, the name adopted by the applicant for registration, is almost identical to that of the third respondent. Adding the word ‘First’ to its name does not substantially differentiate its name from that of the third respondent. Having regard to both names, I am of the view that there is a likelihood that the members of the public will be confused in their dealings with the competing parties.

[39]     I am further of the view that confusion will exist when members of the public wonder as to which of the two entities they are or want to deal with. The argument put forth by the applicant that churches are membership-based entities, and therefore, the risk of confusion is non-existent, is not persuasive. Membership-based entities do not operate in isolation. They interact with the members of the public. They source their members from the members of the public. During such interactions, there should not be confusion on the part of the members of the public as to the entity they are interacting with.

[40]     I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the similarity between the two names is likely to lead to confusion among the members of the public as to the entity they are dealing with. In my view, the registrar correctly applied the provisions of the Act. Her decision did not violate the applicant’s constitutional rights. Furthermore, her decision is neither unfair nor unreasonable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the decision by the registrar to order the applicant to change its name cannot be faulted in the circumstances and stands to be upheld.’

As a result, the applicant’s review application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.