LLP name similarity and trademark conflict cannot block incorporation absent confusion across different classes of goods and services.

Rejection of LLP incorporation on the ground that the proposed name allegedly conflicted with an existing trademark was unjustified where the petitioner had already secured reservation of the name and the later objections were procedural rather than based on name unavailability. The governing rule permits refusal only if the proposed name is undesirable or identical with, or too nearly resembles, another firm, body corporate, or registered trademark. Because the relied-on marks were registered in Class 5 for goods, while the proposed LLP related to services in different classes, and no likelihood of confusion or deception was shown, the existing mark did not bar incorporation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the application for incorporation of the LLP on the ground that the proposed name contained an existing trademark was justified.

Analysis: The petitioner had earlier secured reservation of the proposed name, and the subsequent objections raised by the authorities related to procedural defects rather than unavailability of the name. The governing provision permits refusal only where the proposed LLP name is undesirable or identical with, or too nearly resembles, another firm, body corporate, or registered trademark. The trademark statute confers exclusive rights only in relation to the goods or services for which the mark is registered. The existing marks relied on by the authorities related to Class 5 goods, whereas the proposed LLP name was for services falling in different classes. A mark used for one class of goods cannot be treated as monopolising all other classes where no likelihood of confusion or deception is shown.

Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of similarity to an existing Class 5 trademark was unjustified, and the petitioner was entitled to incorporation of the LLP without objection on the proposed name.

---