Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The petition challenges registration of a corporate name that is structurally and phonetically identical to an earlier corporate group name where the distinctive element 'REFEX' predominates. The court applied precedents requiring that business dissimilarity is not a proper basis for the Registrar/Regional Director to refuse to act; therefore the administrative refusal was held improper and set aside. The decision recognises prominence of a distinctive word across multiple group companies on the register and treats likelihood of confusion and near-identity with an earlier corporate name and registered trade mark as determinative. Petition allowed and impugned order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.