In an urgent application, the Applicants sought interdicts preventing the Respondent from manufacturing, exhibiting, marketing, selling or offering for sale a bus similar to that of the Applicant, and an interdict prohibiting the respondents from infringing the First Applicant's trademarks. The dispute between the parties arose as a result of a taxi recapitalization project. Both the Second Applicant and the Respondent submitted proposals for the supply of 18 seat buses and both were short­listed for the manufacture and supply of the buses to the taxi industry. As a result, they were in direct competition with each other in the tender process. Upon realizing that the Respondent's vehicle was similar to their own, the Applicants filed for the following relief: passing­off; unlawful competition; and trademark infringement. In an urgent application, the Applicants sought interdicts preventing the Respondent from manufacturing, exhibiting,marketing, selling or offering for sale a bus similar to that of the Applicant, and an interdict prohibiting theRespondent from infringing the First Applicant's trade marks.The dispute between the parties arose as a result of a taxi recapitalisation project. Both the Second Applicantand the Respondent submitted proposals for the supply of 18 seat buses and both were short­listed for themanufacture and supply of the buses to the taxi industry. As a result they were in direct competition with each other in the tender process. Upon realizing that the Respondent's vehicle was similar to their own, the Applicants filed for the following relief: passing­off; unlawful competition; and trademark infringement. However, having proved passing­off and unlawful competition, they were granted the interdicts sought.