Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.4. He stated that it is well established that a name of the company is undesirable if it resembles a registered trademark of a previous existing company, irrespective of the nature of business carried out by the rival entities. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments passed by the Co- ordinate Benche(s) of this Court in CGMP Pharmaplan (P) Ltd. v. Regional Director Ministry of Corporate Affairs1, Everstone Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. Everstone Ventures LLP2 and Mondelez Foods Private Limited v. The Regional Director (North) Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Others3.

"14. Section 15 of the LLP Act is identical to Section 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 which are equivalent to Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, both of which also do not contain any such restriction, of the previously incorporated company with which the name of the proposed company is identical or resembles with, being in the same business as the business for which the proposed company is being incorporated. I have in International Trade & Exhibitions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director North 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4011 held that the test under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 being restricted to "identical with or too near resemblance" with the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered or with a registered trade mark, could not be read as "identical with and too near resemblance" with name used by company but by which it is not registered. Reference in this regard can also be made to Rule 8 of Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 & Name Availability Guidelines dated 8th July, 2011 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. ...
17. Thus, irrespective of dissimilarity in business, even if any, of the defendant from that of the plaintiff, the registration of the defendant is violative of Section 15(2)(b) of the LLP Act."

[Emphasis supplied]

13. In addition, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mondelez Foods Private Limited v. The Regional Director (North) Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Others (supra) held that under Section 20 of the Act of 1956, if a name is identical with or too nearly resembles the name of an existing company, which has been previously registered, it would be deemed to be undesirable and such a name would be liable to be rectified under Section 22 of the Act of 1956. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under: -