TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 for issuance of directions to Respondent No. 1 to rectify its name was rejected. 2. Succinctly put, the petitioner company was incorporated on 11.04.2021 and is in the business of manufacturing and providing service in the field of diesel engines, generators and parts thereof. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 company was incorporated on 18.06.2020 and is in the business of providing online and offline education to students in various disciplines including Company Secretary, Chartered Accountant, and Cost Management Accountancy. 3. The petitioner had preferred an application under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking rectification in the name of Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LAND'. 6. He submits that for assessing similarity between competing marks, the likelihood of deception or confusion has to be seen. He submits that the word 'TOPLAD' when construed as a whole is too identical to the registered trademark of the petitioner. He consequently submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the impugned order is well reasoned and warrants no interference by this Court. She submits that the regional director specifically held that the competing names had to be examined as a whole; and that the common expression 'TOP' could not, by itself, confer any exclusivity. She submits that the distinguishing parts of the names being 'LAND'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iously registered, whether under this Act or any previous company law, it may direct the company to change its name and the company shall change its name or new name, as the case may be, within a period of three months from the issue of such direction, after adopting an ordinary resolution for the purpose; (b) on an application by a registered proprietor of a trade mark that the name is identical with or too nearly resembles to a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999), made to the Central Government within three years of incorporation or registration or change of name of the company, whether under this Act or any previous company law, in the opinion of the Central Government, is identi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application ought to be made within three years of incorporation or registration of change in name of the company involved. From a reading of Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 as reproduced supra, the same gets triggered when any company, be it through inadvertence or otherwise, registers itself with a name that is either identical or which nearly resembles another company or a registered trademark. 12. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of CGMP Pharmaplan (P) Ltd. v. Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs : (2010) 159 Comp Cas 231, while examining the contours of the power vested in a Regional Director when deciding an application for rectification and the manner of exercise of the power observed as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is nevertheless required to come to the conclusion whether the name of which the registration is sought or has been granted too nearly resembles the name of another company. Mr Chandra is right in his contention that the powers of the Central Government under Section 22 of the Act are wider inasmuch as there is no need to examine whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion. It is enough to examine if the name registered too nearly resembles another registered name. Respondent 2 has been able to show that both names too nearly resemble each other." (emphasis supplied) 13. The reading of Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 makes it plain that the power stipulated in the said provision is wider and stricter than the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered trademark of the petitioner. 17. Upon a holistic comparison, it is apparent that the terms "TOPLAD" and "TOPLAND", when compared as a whole, are phonetically and structurally similar. In the present case, except for the letter 'N', both the words completely resemble each other and to the mind of a person with average intelligence, the mere negation of the letter 'N' would not make the names visually or phonetically dissimilar. Infact, the negation of the letter 'N' in 'TOPLAD' is more likely to be slurred over while pronunciation. Consequently, the mere removal of a letter in the name 'TOPLAD' does not suffice to make it phonetically or structurally distinct from the petitioner's registered trademark 'TOPLAND'. In Essco Sanitations....