TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opriate writ, direction, order in the nature thereof quashing/setting aside the order dated 27th August 2018 passed in proceedings titled as REF: 16/UP/1 16/2015/6438 passed by Respondent No. 2; B. Direct Respondent No. 2 to hear the parties on merits of the case as pleadings in the case are complete; C. Rectify the name of the Respondent No. 4 company by deleting the mark "PANCHHI" which is identical and similar to petitioner's registered and prior used trademark "PANCHHI";" 2. The issue in the present case obtains from an order dated 27.08.2018 passed by Respondent No. 2 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"]. By the Impugned Order, the Respondent No. 2 has rejected the Application filed by Petitioner for r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Petitioner and Respondent No. 4." 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as "Companies Act"] to submit that the powers of the Office of the Regional Director are limited to what has been set out therein and that the directions may be passed directing a change in the name of the company on the basis of an Application filed by a registered proprietor of the trademark. It is however contended that the directions passed by the Impugned Order, more specifically as set out in paragraph 8, has also decided ownership of the trademark which is beyond the powers as are set out under Section 16 of the Companies Act. 4.1 Learned Senior C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Counsel for the Respondents that all registrations for the mark "Panchhi Petha Store" are not in the name of Mr. Amit Goyal or the partnership firm but in the name of one Mr. Subhash Chandra Goyal, the sole proprietor of Panchhi Petha Store. 6. As stated above, an Application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Companies Act was filed by the Petitioner before the RD seeking removal of the name of Respondent No. 4 from the Register as maintained by the Registrar of Companies with the following prayer: "a. For the reason and grounds mentioned above in accompanying statement of case, it is in the interest of justice, equity and good consequences that the present application be allowed with cost and the impugned company name "PAN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the registered trademark to the RD to effect that the name of a company is as identical or 'too nearly resembles' their registered trade mark provided that an Application under Section 16 (1) (b) is made within three years of incorporation or registration of change in name of the company involved. The relevant extract of Section 16 of the Companies Act is below: "16. Rectification of name of company.- (1) If, through inadvertence or otherwise, a company on its first registration or on its registration by a new name, is registered by a name which,- (a) in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a company in existence had been previously registered, whether under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC OnLine Del 864 (DHC, DB, (Before M.J. Rao, C.J. and A.D. Singh, J.) to explain that the powers of a Civil Court while examining and determining in a passing off action, if one name is confusingly deceptive or similar to another name, is independent of the jurisdiction of the Regional Director in respect of registering of a company's name. It was however held that the Regional Director cannot approach the case, as it would in a trademark dispute. The relevant extract of the CGMP case is below: "17. The decision in Montari Overseas Limited makes it clear that a civil court exercising its powers in terms of the CPC and determining in a passing-off action if one name is confusingly deceptive or similar to another name, is exercisin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined. 11. As stated above, the jurisdiction of the office of the Regional Director under the Companies Act is with respect to change of name/rectification of the name of a company in the event that there are two similar or identical names. The object of the Section 16 of the Companies Act is that the consumers, customers, and general public should not be confused that a company is similar to another company. 12. In the present case, the parties are two entities which are from the same lineage, which are embroiled in disputes over the intellectual property of a brand. The Regional Director while deciding an Application under Section 16 of the Companies Act cannot undertake an examination of the marks as the Intellectual Property Divisi....