Fire In The Hole – When Names Spark A Passing-off Battle

Ever wondered what happens when two businesses use almost identical names? The Supreme Court of Appeal recently answered that in Logik Group Africa t/a Fire Logik v Fire Logic (Pty) Ltd

Background

Fire Logic has operated in the fire protection and maintenance sector since 1994, building a recognised presence in the Eastern and Western Cape over nearly three decades. 

Logik Group, registered in 2015, began trading as 'Fire Logik'. Despite being asked to change its name in 2016 (which it did to Logik Group Africa), the company continued using Fire Logik in trade and on its website for years.

This case was an appeal by Fire Logik against the judgment and order in the High court interdicting them from using the name 'Fire Logik' in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape provinces.

Facts

Fire Logic demonstrated a sustained reputation in its core regions, supported by its years of operation, turnover and marketing investment. Evidence before the courts showed actual instances of confusion, including misdirected purchase orders and emails that conflated the two entities.

Notably, Logik Group Africa had previously promised to change its "Fire Logik" name to avoid confusion but continued to use it.

Issues

Firstly, whether Fire Logic discharged the onus of establishing its reputation. Secondly, whether the High Court correctly found that it had proved the requirements of passing-off and was thus entitled to interdictory relief against Fire Logik.

Decision

On 28 October 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the interdict.

The court held that Fire Logic established its reputation in the relevant markets and that the similarity between "Fire Logic" and "Fire Logik" created a sufficient likelihood of deception or confusion. The court also placed weight on the appellant's continued use of the name after undertaking to desist, characterising their conduct as dishonest.

Given the evidence of actual confusion and the proven reputation in the Eastern and Western Cape, the interdict was appropriately limited to those provinces.

Key lessons

This case highlights the two biggest risks in not registering your trademark, namely:

1. In order to be successful in a passing-off claim you will first need to establish a reputation, which is often difficult to do; and
2. Your rights are limited geographically to the areas where you can establish a reputation.

If Fire Logic has registered its FIRELOGIC trademark it would not have been required to establish a reputation in order to proceed and could have instead relied on trademark infringement proceedings. In addition, its rights would have covered the entire country (and not just the Eastern and Western Cape).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.