https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96805 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. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:32 +0530 Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96805 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. Highlights Companies Law Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:32 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96805