https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786395 The petition challenges a corporate name incorporating an identical, prominent trademark-like element. The court found the shared word to be the prominent and distinctive part of both names and held structural and phonetic identity established; dissimilarity of business activities was not a relevant factor when assessing name similarity under company law. Because a group already used the distinctive element in multiple registered companies before the impugned application, the petition succeeds and the impugned registration refusal order is set aside, restoring the applicant's entitlement in these facts. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786395 The petition challenges a corporate name incorporating an identical, prominent trademark-like element. The court found the shared word to be the prominent and distinctive part of both names and held structural and phonetic identity established; dissimilarity of business activities was not a relevant factor when assessing name similarity under company law. Because a group already used the distinctive element in multiple registered companies before the impugned application, the petition succeeds and the impugned registration refusal order is set aside, restoring the applicant's entitlement in these facts. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786395