9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision, relied on a Judgment of the Division Bench in Montari Overseas Ltd. v. Montari Industries Ltd. [ 1995 (12) TMI 268 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] to explain that the powers of a Civil Court while examining and determining in a passing 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. In the facts of the present case, both the parties have claimed ownership and rights over the mark Panchhi and have disputed each other's submissions. Admittedly, both Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 form part of the same extended family. Both are also engaged in legal proceedings in various fora including against each other in relation to the impugned trademark and other intellectual property related rights. The Impugned Order refers to these disputes, however, it goes on to give a finding of ownership on the mark Panchhi , which cannot be sustained. In the present case, the parties are two entities which are from the same lineage, which are embroiled in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trademark is in the name of Subhash Chander . 9. Therefore, by considering the above facts and submissions and in terms of provisions under sub-section (1) (b) of Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs Notification no. S.O.4090 (E) dated 19.12.2016, the application filed by applicant could not be entertained and no directions can be issued to the respondent. Accordingly, the application filed for rectification/change of name by Applicant Company is hereby rejected/closed and disposed off with no order to cost and liberty to file a fresh if so desire. 3.1 This Court had on 28.10.2024 observed as under: 9. Prima facie, the dispute between the parties, of which the Impugned Order arises, appears to be a trademark dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement 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 forthwith from the register as offending the provisions of the Act with heavy and exemplary cost; and/or 6.1 The Respondent filed its objections/submissions to the Application. Both parties set out their respective contentions which included the fact that there are trademark registrations available with both, the Petitioner, and the Respondent. The Impugned Order evidences both parties have filed extensive litigations against each other before the Trade Mark Registry as well as before the Court, which include the Oppositions and Rectification Petitions which are sub-judice including before Intellectual Property division of this Court. 7. Section 16 of the Companies Act gives the power to the Central Government through the Office of the concerned Regional Director [hereinafter referred to as RD ] to rectify the name of a company. Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the Companies Act contemplates two circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in a case titled CGMP Pharmaplan (P) Ltd. v. Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2387 has while explaining this provision, relied on a Judgment of the Division Bench in Montari Overseas Ltd. v. Montari Industries Ltd. 1995 SCC OnLine Del 864 (DHC, DB, (Before M.J. Rao, C.J. and A.D. Singh, J.) to explain that the powers of a Civil Court while examining and determining in a passing 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 central government in terms of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
