Liquid Telecom – South African trademarks
Updated 8 November 2026
Liquid is a pan-African telecommunications and technology company. It provides fibre, data centre, cloud and connectivity services.
How Liquid Telecom has built and protected its brands in South Africa – its trademark portfolio, where it expanded, how quickly its marks are registered, and who it competes with.
Download report (PDF)Liquid Telecom trademarks in 45 seconds
Watch the video on its own page, with transcript – https://snz.co.za/trademark-country-selection-direct/liquid-telecom-south-african-trademarks/overview-video.html
A portfolio built over time
Liquid Telecom filed its first South African trademark in 2004 and has filed 620 since; its busiest year was 2008, with 310 new filings. The chart shows its filings per year from 1970.
Trademarks by filing year, up to 2024; applications still pending are not included.
The names behind the portfolio
Over the years the group has filed under several names – earlier company names, holding companies and subsidiaries. We count them together.
| Name | Marks | Filing years |
|---|---|---|
| Neotel | 552 | 2007–2013 |
| Liquid Telecom | 506 | 2006–2017 |
| Liquid Telecommunications South Africa Proprietary Limited Formerly N… | 55 | 2011–2013 |
| Liquid Telecommunications | 50 | 2012–2021 |
| Liquid Telecommunication | 10 | 2004–2016 |
Where Liquid Telecom expanded its business
Trademark classes show what a business sells. Liquid Telecom's portfolio is concentrated in telecoms (class 38), electronics & software (class 9), tech & it services (class 42). Its most recent moves were into electronics & software (2007), tech & it services (2007), advertising & retail (2007).
Liquid Telecom trademarks: expansion into trademark classes, 1970–2021
Watch the video on its own page, with transcript – https://snz.co.za/trademark-country-selection-direct/liquid-telecom-south-african-trademarks/class-expansion-video.html
Each tile is a class; it lights up when the group first files in it and darkens with more filings; the dots show how many of its closest rivals also file in that class. The chart compares the number of classes used with its rivals. The video runs from 1970; classes entered earlier are lit from the start.
| Class | Marks | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| 38 Telecoms | 119 | 19.2% | 2004 |
| 9 Electronics & software | 103 | 16.6% | 2007 |
| 42 Tech & IT services | 76 | 12.3% | 2007 |
| 35 Advertising & retail | 68 | 11.0% | 2007 |
| 36 Finance & insurance | 64 | 10.3% | 2004 |
| 41 Education & entertainment | 64 | 10.3% | 2007 |
| 16 Paper & print | 63 | 10.2% | 2007 |
| 37 Construction & repair | 63 | 10.2% | 2007 |
The brands Liquid Telecom protects most
The word marks and logo names Liquid Telecom has filed most often – the same brand filed in more classes, in more versions or again over the years.
| # | Brand | Trademarks | Classes | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AFRICA DATA CENTRES | 10 | 4 | 2018–2018 |
| 2 | NEOACCESS | 9 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 3 | NEOBROADBAND | 8 | 8 | 2007–2008 |
| 4 | NEOCONNECT | 8 | 8 | 2007–2007 |
| 5 | NEOCONNECT LITE | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 6 | NEOCONNECT LITE 199 | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 7 | NEOCONNECT LITE 299 | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 8 | NEOCONNECT LITE 469 | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 9 | NEOCONNECT LITE 99 | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 10 | NEOCONNECT MAX | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 11 | NEOCONNECT MEGA | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 12 | NEOCONNECT PRIME 1G | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 13 | NEOCONNECT PRIME 2,5G | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 14 | NEOCONNECT PRIME UNLIMITED | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
| 15 | NEOCONNECT ULTRA | 8 | 8 | 2008–2008 |
Logos filed most often (since 2020)
Liquid Telecom's logos
The 3 different logos Liquid Telecom has had published since 2020 – each logo shown once, however many classes or versions it was filed in. Logos protected in more classes come first.
How quickly its trademarks are registered
Over the last five years, Liquid Telecom's marks took a median of 4.5 years from filing to registration, slower than the market's 2.7 years. Most of that time is examination: 3.8 years from filing to acceptance (market: 1.9). Registration itself follows about half a year after acceptance.
Median years from filing to registration per registration year, split into examination (filing → acceptance) and acceptance → registration; the dashed line is the market median. A high recent value means older applications came through that year.
Who files the most in Liquid Telecom's classes
Ranked by number of trademarks filed in Liquid Telecom's main classes – any company that files there, whatever else it does (including retailers' own brands). This shows Liquid Telecom's market position, not who is most like it.
In the last five years, Liquid Telecom was #172 of 893 filers in class 38 (telecoms), with 2 of 1,971 trademarks; #799 of 3,000 filers in class 42 (tech & IT services), with 2 of 5,783 trademarks.
Liquid Telecom's share of all trademarks filed in each of its main classes, per filing year.
Top trademark filers in class 38 (telecoms), South Africa 1975–2024: Liquid Telecom
Watch the video on its own page, with transcript – https://snz.co.za/trademark-country-selection-direct/liquid-telecom-south-african-trademarks/class-38-race-video.html
Main competitors – the companies most like Liquid Telecom
Ranked by how similar their whole trademark portfolio is to Liquid Telecom's – the same mix of classes and the same words in their marks – not by size. Large filers in its classes that do something different rank lower here.
Liquid Telecom's closest competitors in South Africa are Vodafone, Cell C, Telkom and Vodacom.
Liquid Telecom trademarks vs competitors: filings per year, 2010–2024
Watch the video on its own page, with transcript – https://snz.co.za/trademark-country-selection-direct/liquid-telecom-south-african-trademarks/competitors-video.html
Trademark filings per year: Liquid Telecom (orange) and its five closest competitors.
| # | Company | Relationship | Similarity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vodafone | Direct competitor | 98% |
| 2 | Cell C | Direct competitor | 93% |
| 3 | Telkom | Direct competitor | 91% |
| 4 | Vodacom | Direct competitor | 90% |
| 5 | MTN | Direct competitor | 83% |
| 6 | Blue Label Distribution | Direct competitor | 77% |
| 7 | Vox Telecommunications | Direct competitor | 77% |
| 8 | Teraco Data Environments | 84% | |
| 9 | SABC | 78% | |
| 10 | Pattern Matched Technologies | 77% |
Similarity of trademark activity since 2015 (classes and words used in marks). Retailers appear where their own brands compete on the shelf.
Liquid Telecom – relevant export countries
Adjust the weightings
These weightings decide how the countries below are ranked. Change any value and the others adjust to keep the total at 100%.
Worldwide
| # | Market | Score | SA exports | Import growth / yr | Route | Cost, 2 classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States of America | 77 | US$29 m | +6% | National | US$1,400 |
| 2 | European Union | 75 | US$39 m | +2% | National | US$1,594 |
| 3 | United Kingdom | 66 | US$9.7 m | -1% | National | US$833 |
| 4 | India | 63 | US$1.7 m | +1% | National | US$563 |
| 5 | Hong Kong SAR | 61 | US$2.2 m | +9% | National | US$807 |
| 6 | Japan | 59 | US$655 k | +2% | National | US$893 |
| 7 | Singapore | 59 | US$2.2 m | +15% | National | US$888 |
| 8 | Canada | 58 | US$3.6 m | -4% | National | US$1,338 |
| 9 | Australia | 58 | US$9.4 m | -3% | National | US$1,300 |
| 10 | Namibia | 58 | US$68 m | +22% | ARIPO | US$290 |
Africa
| # | Market | Score | SA exports | Import growth / yr | Route | Cost, 2 classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Namibia | 58 | US$68 m | +22% | ARIPO | US$290 S&Z |
| 2 | Mozambique | 52 | US$45 m | +21% | ARIPO | US$290 S&Z |
| 3 | Nigeria | 51 | US$9.4 m | -13% | National | US$406 S&Z |
| 4 | Zimbabwe | 50 | US$41 m | +12% | ARIPO | US$290 S&Z |
| 5 | Botswana | 50 | US$61 m | -19% | ARIPO | US$290 S&Z |
| 6 | OAPI (17 states) | 47 | US$14 m | +4% | National | US$1,009 S&Z |
| 7 | Eswatini | 46 | US$25 m | -2% | ARIPO | US$290 S&Z |
| 8 | Tanzania | 46 | US$10 m | -1% | ARIPO | US$290 S&Z |
| 9 | Morocco | 46 | US$170 k | +13% | National | US$856 |
| 10 | Malawi | 46 | US$11 m | +23% | ARIPO | US$290 S&Z |
SA exports = South Africa's exports of these goods to the market in the last year. Ranked with the default weightings. Score 0–100 from South Africa's exports of the goods to the market, net imports, import growth, foreign trademark filings, where the goods are made, market size and the cost of protection. Costs are total fees (official and professional) to file in 2 classes; ARIPO costs are per country, plus US$269 once per ARIPO application; S&Z = S&Z's own all-in price. Goods are taken from the classes and specifications, so the ranking is indicative.
Trade data: CEPII BACI (version 202601, trade flows 2022–2024), Licence Etalab 2.0; aggregated and combined with other data by S&Z.
Protecting its top brands in Nigeria and OAPI with S&Z
| Brand | Classes | Nigeria | OAPI (17 states) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AFRICA DATA CENTRES | 4 | US$812 | US$1,378 |
| NEOACCESS | 8 | US$1,624 | US$2,117 |
| NEOBROADBAND | 8 | US$1,624 | US$2,117 |
| NEOCONNECT | 8 | US$1,624 | US$2,117 |
| NEOCONNECT LITE | 8 | US$1,624 | US$2,117 |
S&Z all-in prices per brand in its number of classes, filing to registration.
TM Country Selection Rank the countries for your own goods and get the quotes.
Word marks you may have considered opposing
For Liquid Telecom's five most-filed brands: word marks of other companies (not Liquid Telecom's own group) that our similar word mark search, SimTM, found in the brand's own classes, and that we consider confusingly similar – from the earliest match found to today.
Similar to AFRICA DATA CENTRES (classes 9, 35, 38, 42; searched 2018-01-31 to 2026-11-07)
No confusingly similar marks of other companies found in this period.
Similar to NEOACCESS (classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42; searched 2018-11-28 to 2026-11-07)
No confusingly similar marks of other companies found in this period.
Similar to NEOBROADBAND (classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42; no close matches in the search)
No confusingly similar marks of other companies found.
Similar to NEOCONNECT (classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42; searched 2022-02-23 to 2026-11-07)
No confusingly similar marks of other companies found in this period.
Similar to NEOCONNECT LITE (classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42; searched 2022-02-23 to 2026-11-07)
No confusingly similar marks of other companies found in this period.
Similarity of the words only. Whether a mark could have been opposed depends on the goods and services, the reputation of the brand and the facts – S&Z can advise. New marks like these are what SimTM watch reports as they are published.
How S&Z can help you
S&Z does not just file trademarks. We are a technology-first firm that manages trademarks – analysing your data, monitoring competitors and making sure your trademark assets remain protected.
We manage your trademarks – not just file them
Analysing your data, monitoring competitors and making sure your trademark assets remain protected:
Filing and renewal at fixed, all-inclusive prices
S&Z prices – South African trademarks
| Filing, first class – incl. official fee, examination report, routine office action, acceptance, publication, registration and e-certificate | US$240 |
| Each additional class of the same mark, filed at the same time | US$225 |
| Renewal online, per class (every 10 years from filing) | R1,027 ≈ US$62.29 |
Renewal in rand; US$ at R16.49 per US$.
Liquid Telecom's next five years of renewals
547 of Liquid Telecom's registered marks reach their ten-year renewal date in 2027–2031. Renewed online with S&Z, that costs about US$34,072 over the five years.
Liquid Telecom: frequently asked questions
What should Liquid Telecom consider for its trademarks?
- Possible gaps: its competitors also protect class 45 (legal & security), class 39 (transport & travel) – worth checking against what the business sells or plans to sell.
- Fewer new brands: new brand names fell from 1.8 to 0.4 a year – worth reviewing whether planned launches are being protected early enough.
- Renewals and use: keep track of the ten-year renewal dates and of marks that are no longer used – unused marks can be challenged after five years, and some may no longer be worth renewing.