SOUTHERN SUN ‘SQUARES OFF’ AGAINST NAMIBIAN BRAND OFFENDER
Author: Kareema Shaik
The Namibian High Court recently issued a decision (read the decision here) dealing with passing-off and copyright infringement in the matter of Southern Sun Africa (First Applicant) & Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Limited (Second Applicant) and Sun Square Hotel (Pty) Limited (Respondent).
The Applicants form part of the well-known South African hotel and entertainment group, Tsogo Sun. The First Applicant, Southern Sun Africa, a Mauritian company, is the proprietor of trade mark registrations for the SUN SQUARE logo trade mark (depicted below) in South Africa. The Second Applicant, Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Limited, owns the copyright in the SUN SQUARE logo, as an original artistic work. The SUN SQUARE logo has been used in South Africa under licence from the First Applicant for many years in relation to hotel and related services.
In Mid 2015, the Applicants became aware that the Respondent, Sun Square Hotel (Pty) Limited, was operating a hotel in the neighbouring country, Namibia, under the name SUN SQUARE, using an identical logo on its hotel signage, branding and guest amenities.
The First Applicant sought to restrain the Respondent’s unauthorised use of the SUN SQUARE word and logo marks, while the Second Applicant alleged the Respondent had infringed the copyright in the SUN SQUARE logo.
The First Applicant does not operate a SUN SQUARE hotel in Namibia, but it argued that it had established a reputation in the trade mark in the country through cross-border trade and spill-over advertising. Evidence of use of the mark in South Africa was submitted and the Court accepted that such evidence was sufficient to prove knowledge of the mark amongst a substantial number of people in the relevant sector in Namibia. The Court also found that the Second Applicant had established copyright in the SUN SQUARE logo.
The Court found that the Respondent’s unauthorised use of the SUN SQUARE word and logo marks amounted to passing-off which, the Court stated resulted, or was calculated to result, “in the improper filching of the First Applicant’s trade mark, an improper infringement of its goodwill and may cause injury to the First Applicant’s trade reputation”.
The Court consequently granted the interdict restraining the Respondent from passing itself off as the First Applicant. An interdict for copyright infringement was also granted and the Second Applicant was awarded reasonable royalties and additional damages.
The First Respondent has filed an appeal against the decision.
by Kareema Shaik | Senior Associate

Kareema Shaik
#AD OR #ATRISK? What the Arb's Influencer Ruling Means for Brand Owners
As consumers increasingly turn to social media for recommendations, influencer marketing has become one of the fastest-growing and most influential forms of advertising and one of the most valuable to...
August 13 2026
The Art of Choosing a Trade Mark
For many business owners, choosing a name for a new business venture is an exciting stage of building a brand. However, it is also one of the most important decisions you will make, as your trade name...
August 12 2026
Can You Recognise a Brand by Colour Alone? The Latest Instagram Trend Says Yes – But Trade Mark Law Isn't Quite So Simple
Instagram’s latest branding trend is simple: remove the logo, remove the name, and leave only colour swatches to choose from. Surprisingly, as it would appear from the comments and user engageme...
August 07 2026

