Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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.
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
