https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781986 HC held that Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Regional Director to direct change of a company's name whenever it is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name of an existing company, without requiring proof of trademark infringement, deception, or confusion. Relying on the earlier decision in cGMP Pharmaplan, the HC reiterated that only structural and phonetic similarity of the names is relevant. In the present case, the competing company names were substantially identical, differing only in the first word ("SKA" and "SKAAD"). Finding no perversity in the Regional Director's decision, the HC declined interference under Article 226 and dismissed the petition. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781986 HC held that Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Regional Director to direct change of a company's name whenever it is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name of an existing company, without requiring proof of trademark infringement, deception, or confusion. Relying on the earlier decision in cGMP Pharmaplan, the HC reiterated that only structural and phonetic similarity of the names is relevant. In the present case, the competing company names were substantially identical, differing only in the first word ("SKA" and "SKAAD"). Finding no perversity in the Regional Director's decision, the HC declined interference under Article 226 and dismissed the petition. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781986