Corporate name similarity and trademark-like prominence found decisive; petition allowed and impugned registration refusal set aside.

The petition challenges a corporate name incorporating an identical, prominent trademark-like element. The court found the shared word to be the prominent and distinctive part of both names and held structural and phonetic identity established; dissimilarity of business activities was not a relevant factor when assessing name similarity under company law. Because a group already used the distinctive element in multiple registered companies before the impugned application, the petition succeeds and the impugned registration refusal order is set aside, restoring the applicant's entitlement in these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Regional Director erred in rejecting the petitioners application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking direction to rectify/change Respondent No.2's name (Refex Hotels Private Limited) on the ground that the name is identical with or too nearly resembles the petitioners prior company name and registered trademark 'REFEX'.

Analysis: The Court compared the corporate names and found 'REFEX' to be the prominent and distinctive part of both names, noting the petitioners prior incorporation (2002) and prior registration of the coined word 'REFEX' as a trademark (Class 1, effective 17.05.2007). Authorities of this Court establish that under the statutory scheme (including Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 and predecessor provisions), the competent authority must determine whether a proposed or registered name is identical with or too nearly resembles an existing registered name; dissimilarity in the nature of business is not a determinative criterion for declining to issue directions. The Regional Directors sole basis for rejectiondifference in business activities between the partieswas therefore not a relevant ground for refusing relief. The Court also considered the respondents assertions (coinage and good faith adoption; existence of other companies using 'REFEX') and found them unsubstantiated on the record. The Court declined to dismiss the petition on delay grounds in view of the suspension of limitation for part of the intervening period.

Conclusion: The petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 23.08.2018 is set aside and Respondent No.2 is directed to change its name within four weeks to a name that is not identical with or does not resemble the petitioners name or any other existing company.

---