Regional Director exceeded jurisdiction by determining trademark ownership in company name rectification under Section 16(1)(b)

Delhi HC set aside Regional Director's order rejecting petitioner's application for rectification of respondent company's name under Section 16(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2013. Court held that Regional Director exceeded jurisdiction by determining ownership of disputed "Panchhi" trademark between related family entities engaged in multiple IP disputes. HC ruled that Regional Director cannot examine trademark ownership or decide IP rights like courts do in passing off actions, as such determinations fall outside Companies Act jurisdiction. Petition disposed of with impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves issues related to the rejection of an application for rectification/change in the name of a company under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, ownership of a trademark, jurisdiction of the Regional Director, and the powers of the Central Government in directing a change of company name.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Application for Rectification/Change in Company Name
The petitioner sought a writ to quash an order rejecting their application for rectification/change in the name of a company under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013. The impugned order by Respondent No. 2 refused the application based on the petitioner not being recognized as the owner of the trademark, which was considered a trademark dispute between the parties. The court noted that the Regional Director's powers are limited to rectifying company names under specific circumstances outlined in the Companies Act.

Issue 2: Ownership of Trademark
Both parties claimed ownership of the trademark 'Panchhi,' leading to disputes and extensive litigations. The court emphasized that the Regional Director cannot determine ownership of a trademark while deciding on a name rectification application under the Companies Act. The judgment highlighted that the Regional Director's jurisdiction does not extend to resolving trademark ownership disputes, which are typically addressed by the Intellectual Property Division of a court.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Regional Director
The court clarified that the Regional Director's role under Section 16 of the Companies Act is limited to rectifying company names to prevent confusion among consumers. The judgment emphasized that the Regional Director should not delve into trademark ownership disputes or conduct examinations of trademarks, tasks reserved for specialized intellectual property forums.

Issue 4: Powers of the Central Government
The judgment referenced previous cases to explain the Central Government's powers in directing a change of company name under the Companies Act. It highlighted the distinction between civil court jurisdiction in passing-off actions related to deceptive names and the Regional Director's role in ensuring company name distinctiveness. The court underscored the importance of preventing confusion among companies with similar or identical names.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order, allowing both parties to pursue appropriate legal proceedings if necessary. The judgment emphasized the need for clarity in trademark ownership disputes and the distinct roles of different legal forums in resolving such conflicts.

---