Patrice Motsepe’s ARM takes trademark fight to South Africa tribunal over lookalike company names

African Rainbow Minerals, the mining group chaired by billionaire businessman Patrice Motsepe, has taken its battle over brand identity to South Africa’s Companies Tribunal, accusing several firms of trading on a name it says is widely known in the market.

The company, often referred to by the initials ARM, filed cases against African Rainbow Healthcare, African Rainbow Laboratories and ARM Global, arguing that the names are confusingly similar to its registered trademarks and could leave the public with the impression there is a business link.

According to the tribunal summary, ARM told the panel that “ARM Global” in particular fails to meet requirements under the Companies Act because it resembles the ARM brand and, in the company’s view, suggests an association that does not exist.

The Companies Tribunal is an agency of the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition and hears certain disputes tied to company registrations and compliance questions under the Companies Act.

ARM’s lawyers leaned heavily on the group’s long operating history and the way its name circulates in business reporting and public conversation. The tribunal heard that the company’s predecessor, African Rainbow Minerals Gold Ltd, was widely known as “ARM GOLD,” with mining roots in South Africa dating back to 1933 and a listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1997.

The tribunal description also notes that ARM operates mines in several South African provinces, including the Northern Cape, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu Natal, and has interests extending beyond the country, including Malaysia. It employs thousands of workers and contractors and has built a business around partnerships with major players and investors in the resources sector.

Motsepe, who is also president of the Confederation of African Football, founded the company in its current form and serves as executive chairman. The tribunal said the group is frequently profiled locally and internationally and is commonly identified as “African Rainbow” or “ARM.”

In its findings earlier this month, the tribunal said the “AFRICAN RAINBOW” and “AFRICAN RAINBOW MINERALS” marks have gained significant goodwill through decades of use and qualify for strong protection as well known trademarks. The ruling also noted that those marks are protected against passing off under common law.

The tribunal went further, warning that the ongoing registration of an offending name can cause continuing harm by misleading the public and weakening the distinctive character of a brand that has become closely tied to a specific business. It said similarities can be visual, phonetic and conceptual, and that confusion can arise when names appear to signal an authorized connection in the course of trade.

Brand disputes like this matter well beyond logos and letterheads, especially in South Africa’s crowded corporate registry. A familiar name can open doors with suppliers, banks and customers, and it can also become a magnet for opportunists looking for credibility they have not earned.

The tribunal process does not turn on whether two businesses compete in the same lane. The test often focuses on likely confusion and the impression created when a name rides close to a well known mark, particularly one that has been built over time through sustained public use.

Motsepe’s company is signaling it wants a clear boundary around the ARM identity, and the case is another reminder that big, established brands will defend their names with the same intensity they protect their assets underground.