9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof quashing/setting aside the order dated 27th August 2018 passed in proceedings titled as REF: 16/UP/1 16/2015/6438 passed by Respondent No. 2; B. Direct Respondent No. 2 to hear the parties on merits of the case as pleadings in the case are complete; C. Rectify the name of the Respondent No. 4 company by deleting the mark "PANCHHI" which is identical and similar to petitioner's registered and prior used trademark "PANCHHI";" 2. The issue in the present case obtains from an order dated 27.08.2018 passed by Respondent No. 2 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"]. By the Impugned Order, the Respondent No. 2 has rejected the Application filed by Petitioner for rectification/change in the name of the Respondent No. 4 Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Court to Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as "Companies Act"] to submit that the powers of the Office of the Regional Director are limited to what has been set out therein and that the directions may be passed directing a change in the name of the company on the basis of an Application filed by a registered proprietor of the trademark. It is however contended that the directions passed by the Impugned Order, more specifically as set out in paragraph 8, has also decided ownership of the trademark which is beyond the powers as are set out under Section 16 of the Companies Act. 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, in addition, contends that both sub-Sections (a) and (b) of Section 16 (1) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Mr. Amit Goyal or the partnership firm but in the name of one Mr. Subhash Chandra Goyal, the sole proprietor of Panchhi Petha Store. 6. As stated above, an Application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Companies Act was filed by the Petitioner before the RD seeking removal of the name of Respondent No. 4 from the Register as maintained by the Registrar of Companies with the following prayer: "a. For the reason and grounds mentioned above in accompanying statement of case, it is in the interest of justice, equity and good consequences that the present application be allowed with cost and the impugned company name "PANCCHI PETHA PRIVATE LIMITED" under CIN::U15122UP2012PTC051161 may kindly be pleased to cancel/remove/rectify/expunged forthw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed trade mark provided that an Application under Section 16 (1) (b) is made within three years of incorporation or registration of change in name of the company involved. The relevant extract of Section 16 of the Companies Act is below: "16. Rectification of name of company.- (1) If, through inadvertence or otherwise, a company on its first registration or on its registration by a new name, is registered by a name which,- (a) in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a company in existence had been previously registered, whether under this Act or any previous company law, it may direct the company to change its name and the company shall change its name or new name, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assing off action, if one name is confusingly deceptive or similar to another name, is independent of the jurisdiction of the Regional Director in respect of registering of a company's name. It was however held that the Regional Director cannot approach the case, as it would in a trademark dispute. The relevant extract of the CGMP case is below: "17. The decision in Montari Overseas Limited makes it clear that a civil court exercising its powers in terms of the CPC and determining in a passing-off action if one name is confusingly deceptive or similar to another name, is exercising a jurisdiction independent of the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 in respect of the registering of a company's name. The latter is a power vested in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a company in the event that there are two similar or identical names. The object of the Section 16 of the Companies Act is that the consumers, customers, and general public should not be confused that a company is similar to another company. 12. In the present case, the parties are two entities which are from the same lineage, which are embroiled in disputes over the intellectual property of a brand. The Regional Director while deciding an Application under Section 16 of the Companies Act cannot undertake an examination of the marks as the Intellectual Property Division of a Court would. It cannot also decide the ownership of a mark while deciding such an Application under Section 16 of Companies Act, where these are disputed contentions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
