Bloomberg Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Companies and Another (6939/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 228 (8 November 2012)

Bloomberg Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Companies and Another (6939/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 228 (8 November 2012)

The court found that the applicant's company name, 'Bloomberg's Posterity Investments', is undesirable and likely to cause confusion with the second respondent, Bloomberg Finance L.P., a well-known international financial services company with significant reputation and trademark protection in South Africa. The applicant's arguments regarding its internal focus and local operations were insufficient to dispel the likelihood of confusion, especially given the global nature of financial services and the pervasive reputation of the second respondent. The court held that the applicant could choose a name that more accurately reflects its internal objectives without benefiting from the...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 228
Parties
Applicant: Bloomberg's Posterity Investments (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Registrar of Companies; Respondent: Bloomberg Finance L.P.
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2012
Case Number
6939/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; Registrar's decision confirmed.
Judges
Allie
Legal Topics
Company Name Undesirability, Passing Off, Trademark Confusion, Review of Administrative Decision
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Company Name Undesirability Passing Off Trademark Confusion Review of Administrative Decision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloomberg's Posterity Investments (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Registrar of Companies

Respondent

Bloomberg Finance L.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the name 'Bloomberg's Posterity Investments' is undesirable under section 45(2) of the Companies Act, 1973.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's company name is calculated to cause damage to the second respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Registrar's decision should be set aside under section 48 of the Companies Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's company name, 'Bloomberg's Posterity Investments', is undesirable and likely to cause confusion with the second respondent, Bloomberg Finance L.P., a well-known international financial services company with significant reputation and trademark protection in South Africa. The applicant's arguments regarding its internal focus and local operations were insufficient to dispel the likelihood of confusion, especially given the global nature of financial services and the pervasive reputation of the second respondent. The court held that the applicant could choose a name that more accurately reflects its internal objectives without benefiting from the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; Registrar's decision confirmed.

Orders

  • The decision of the Registrar of Companies is confirmed.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.