IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Refex Industries Limited v. Regional Director, Northern Regi…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Section 16, Companies Act, 2013 (identical or resembling company names)
Brief facts
Refex Industries challenged a 2018 order of the Regional Director that declined to direct a later company (Refex Hotels) to change a name resembling the petitioner's name.
Issues before the Court
Whether the later company should be directed to change a name identical to or resembling the petitioner's name.
Court's findings
The Court set aside the 2018 order and held that respondent no. 2 must change its name to one that is not identical to or resembling the petitioner's or any other existing company's name.
Decision
Respondent no. 2 directed to change its name within four weeks; its directors to ensure compliance; Regional Director to issue appropriate directions; petition disposed of.
Key legal principle / ratio
A company name identical to or closely resembling an existing company's name and mark may be ordered to be changed, and the Regional Director's refusal to do so can be set aside in writ jurisdiction by the IP Division.
Important paragraph references
Paras 20-21.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Company Name Rectification of Name Regional Director Trade Name Writ Petition
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order