https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407156 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. en-us Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407156 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 07 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407156