2023 (1) TMI 1055 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking cancellation/ rectification of the name of Respondent No.3 - seeking cancellation on the ground that it resembles the name of its company and its business - Validity of incorporation of the Respondent No.3 under the name Purecure Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated on 11th April, 2020 - HELD THAT - A perusal of Section 4(2)(a) as also Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 makes it clear that the name of a company which too nearly resembles an earlier existing name cannot be allotted to a company. The purpose of these two provisions is to ensure that companies do not register names which are identical or similar to earlier registered corporate names or registered trademarks so as to avoid any confusion in the market place between similarly sounding or identical businesses. The perusal of the two names, in the present case, Pure Cure Ayurveda Private Limited and Purecure Private Limited leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that they are resembling each other and there is likelihood of confusion between the two businesses. The Petitioner s company is registered prior in point of time than the Respondent no.3. The Respondent no.3 is willing to cancel and give up the objectionable name. In view of the stand of Respondent No.3, the writ petition is disposed of directing the ROC to remove/modify the Register of Companies by removing the name of Respondent No.3 from the said register and rectifying the name of the company of Respondent No.3. For the said purpose, if any forms are to be filed, the same shall be filed by Respondent No.3 within three weeks. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to incorporation of Respondent No.3 company's name resembling Petitioner's company name.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by the Petitioners challenging the incorporation of Respondent No.3 under a name similar to the Petitioner's company name. The Petitioners sought cancellation/rectification of Respondent No.3's name, citing Sections 4 and 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prohibit names resembling existing companies. The Petitioner's substantial revenues and the similarity between the names were highlighted as grounds for the challenge.

Respondent No.3, in response to the petition, expressed willingness to approach the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for striking down its name to avoid litigation and competition with the Petitioner. The Respondent cited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason to minimize costs and expenses. However, technical issues prevented Respondent No.3 from seeking cancellation due to the pending writ petition.

The court, after considering Sections 4 and 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, emphasized the importance of avoiding confusion in the market between similar business names. The court noted the resemblance between the names "Pure Cure Ayurveda Private Limited" and "Purecure Private Limited" and the potential for confusion. Given Respondent No.3's willingness to rectify the situation, the court directed the ROC to remove/modify the Register of Companies by rectifying Respondent No.3's name within two months of filing the necessary forms, absolving Respondent No.3 from the ongoing proceedings.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, acknowledging Respondent No.3's intent to rectify the name issue and directing the necessary actions for the name rectification within a specified timeline.