Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Regional Director, Corporate Affairs, upholding an objection taken by M/s Parle Products Private Limited that the name of the petitioner's Company must be changed since the name is similar to the trade mark of its product. The petitioner's name was Bharat Gluco Industries Private Limited and the objector M/s Parle Products Private Limited was complaining that the petitioner- Company had an expression "Gluco" in the name of the Company which was registered trade mark of M/s Parle Product Private Limited.

2. The petitioner is a registered Company with the Registrar of Companies Act in the year 2005 and a notice and action taken in the year 2008 by M/s Parle Product Private Limited has resulted in a decision that was taken on 15.07.2011 directing the petitioner to change the name. The learned counsel for the petitioner cites before me instances of several companies which have "Gluco" attached to the name or its products and there have been no objection taken in that regard. The petitioner also states that the Company is not in the business of manufacture and it does not manufacture any goods or market any product that carries the respondents trade mark "Gluco".

section (1)."

5. In clause (2), the Company which is identical with or merely resembles a registered trade mark itself is deemed to be undesirable by the Government within the meaning of Sub Section (1). The congruity to the name of the Company of what it contains with the name of a trade mark comes within the undesirable name contemplated under Section 20. In this case, there can be no dispute at all of the fact that the petitioner has in its name a product too well known in the minds of public and associated with glucose through a brand name Gluco which is an innovation of M/s Parle Product Private Limited. The person who has complained of violation and seeks for change cannot be compelled to go after every Company that bears resemblance to its trade mark or its Company name. Though the counsel would show to me several names of Companies or products through the information secured under Right to Information Act that carry Gluco either as a product name or a word incorporated in the name of the Company, that cannot by itself be a ground to justify that the petitioner could carry with the name. An owner of a brand may have objection of a Company which carries large scale operations and whose presence is felt in the market. He may have cause for a complaint against only a big time operator who is visible, while he may not make notice of the small time player who could pose no business threat or rivalry in the market. The owner of a trade mark must have liberty to choose his opponent who can widely affect his business and whose presence might give a misleading information about a wrong association of the name of the company with the trade mark. If M/s Parle Products therefore picks up the petitioner who boasts of large scale operations running to `50 crores per year, then M/s Parle Products would be justified in pointing out to the name Gluco found in the petitioner's Company name as an objectionable name.