Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Factual Matrix
2. The facts, as stated in the petition, which are relevant for adjudication of the present case are as under: -
2.1. The Petitioner Company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 ['the Act of 1956'] on 13.09.2002 in Tamil Nadu, under the name -

'Refex Refrigerants Private Limited' and was converted into a public company on 30.03.2006, under the name - 'Refex Refrigerants Limited'. Thereafter, on 22.11.2013, the Petitioner Company's name was changed to 'Refex Industries Limited'.

2.5. On 27.04.2018, the Petitioner Company filed an application under Form No. RD-1 under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 ['the Application'] before Respondent No. 1 i.e., Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs ['Regional Director'] seeking rectification of Respondent No. 2 company's name i.e., M/s Refex Hotels Private Limited on the ground that same includes the word 'REFEX', which is identical to the Petitioner's registered trade mark 'REFEX'. 2.6. It is stated that the hearing was concluded on 19.06.2018 and vide impugned order dated 23.08.2018, the Regional Director has rejected the Application filed by the Petitioner Company on the ground that though the Petitioner Company is the owner of the registered trademark 'REFEX' in Class 1; Respondent No. 2 is operating in hotel industry and these activities fall under a distinct class under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ['Trade Marks Act']. Hence, the business activities of Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are totally different and on this basis the application is rejected. 2.7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the Petitioner Company has filed the present writ petition.

3.2. He stated that Respondent No. 2's company name is identical with the Petitioner's company name as well as the Petitioner's other group companies, which also includes the name 'REFEX'. He stated that in addition to the Petitioner itself, there are nine (9) other group companies and all of them have 'REFEX' as its distinctive part.

3.3. He stated that Respondent No.1 has failed to consider that Respondent No.2 Company has been incorporated with the name 'REFEX' without seeking the consent of the Petitioner.

17. The Respondent No. 2's submission that the word 'REFEX' is descriptive of the hospitality services rendered by the company is contradicted by its submissions that the word 'REFEX' is a coined word. In addition, Respondent No. 2's submission that 'REFEX' is descriptive of hospitality service is also unpersuasive and unsubstantiated. The documents on record show that the Petitioner is the prior adopter of this coined word 'REFEX' and, therefore, Respondent No. 2 had no reasonable grounds for adopting this word as a part of its corporate name. The adoption of this name is undesirable within the scope of Section 4(2)(a) of the Act of 2013 as it is identical with the name of the Petitioner.