Dismissed

Apar Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/5323/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition seeking rectification of the name APAAR Infratech Private Limited under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court held that the names do not resemble each other when read as a whole, noting that APAR is a common Hindi word and the applicant lacks a word mark right.

What did the court decide?

The petition for rectification of the respondent no. 4's name was dismissed, affirming the impugned order.

Apar Industries Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5323/2013

¶4

APAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ankur S. Kulkarni and Ms Swheta S. Parihar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr Shubham Pundhir, Advocate for R-1, 2 & 3. Dr Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for R- 4.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 15.02.2018

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 12.04.2013 (hereafter „the impugned order‟) passed by respondent no.2 (Central Government), whereby the petitioner‟s application for rectification of the name of respondent no.4 company under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter „the Act‟) was rejected.

¶12

The petitioner had changed its corporate name from „Power Cables Private Limited‟ to „APAR Private Limited‟ on 30.09.1974. The petitioner claims that the petitioner, as well as its group companies, are proprietors of various trademarks, which include the word „APAR‟. The petitioner is also the proprietor of two labels, which include the words „APAR Private Limited‟.

¶13

The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved as respondent no.3 (ROC) has

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

W.P.(C) 5323/2013

¶16

registered respondent no. 4 company under the corporate name „APAAR Infratech Private Limited‟.

¶17

The petitioner claims that the corporate name of respondent no.4 too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner company and its trademarks and, therefore, the name of respondent no.4 company is liable to be rectified.

¶18

The petitioner claims that although respondent no.4 was incorporated on 15.05.2008, the petitioner came across the name of respondent no.4 company in November 2009. Thereafter, on 20.08.2010, the petitioner filed a petition with the Central Government (Regional Director Ministry of Corporate Affairs) under Section 22 of the Act seeking rectification of respondent no.4‟s name.

¶19

The petitioner claims that its group companies were using the trademark „APAR‟ since 1973. The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing and supply of electric conductors for power transmission lines, transformer oil, industrial oils automotive and specialty oils and cables. The petitioner claims to be one of the largest manufacturers and exporters of electric conductors in Asia. The petitioner contended that its group includes seven other companies that use the name „APAR‟ as a part of their corporate name.

¶20

The Central Government did not accept the petitioner‟s claim that the corporate name of respondent no.4 was identical with or too nearly resembled the petitioner‟s trademark and, accordingly, rejected the petitioner‟s petition filed under Section 22 of the Act.

¶21

At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to Section 22 of the Act which is set out below:-

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

W.P.(C) 5323/2013

¶24

“ 22. RECTIFICATION OF NAME OF COMPANY

¶25

(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-

¶26

(i) in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered, whether under this Act or any previous companies law, the firstmentioned company, or

¶27

(ii) on an application by a registered proprietor of a trade mark, is in the opinion of the Central Government identical with, or too nearly resembles, a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such company,

¶28

(a) may, by ordinary resolution and with the previous approval of the Central Government signified in writing, change its name or new name ; and

¶29

(b) shall, if the Central Government so directs within twelve months of its first registration or registration by its new name, as the case may be, or within twelve months of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, by ordinary resolution and with the previous approval of the Central Government signified in writing, change its name or new name within a period of three months from the date of the direction or such longer period as the Central Government may think fit to allow.

¶30

Provided that no application under clause (ii) made by a registered proprietor of a trade mark after five years of coming to notice of registration of the company shall be considered by the Central Government.

¶31

(2) If a company makes default in complying with any direction given under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the company, and every officer who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to 3 [one thousand] rupees for every day during which the default continues.”

¶32

It is apparent from the above that a company would be called upon to

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

W.P.(C) 5323/2013

¶35

change its corporate name if it is „ identical with or too nearly resembles ‟ the name of the existing company or a registered trademark.

¶36

In the present case, it is difficult to accept that the name of respondent no.4 is identical with or too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner. Whereas the name of the petitioner is „APAR Industries Limited‟, the name of respondent no.4 is „APAAR Infratech Private Limited‟. The first word of the corporate names of the petitioner and respondent no.4 are phonetically similar; but they are not spelled in the same manner. More importantly, the corporate names must be read as a whole and need not be dissected. The word „APAR‟ is not a unique coined word; it is commonly used in hindi language and it means, unbounded, inestimable, immeasurable and vast. Inclusion of a word of common language in a corporate name would not grant any exclusive right to the petitioner so as to prevent any other person from using such words as a part of their corporate name.

¶37

Further, respondent no.4 had also produced a list of 61 companies, the names of which include the word „APAR‟. It is also pointed out that there are 25 other companies whose names include the word „APAAR‟. In this view, it would not be apposite to determine whether the names of respondent no.4 is similar to the petitioner only on the basis that one word in the corporate name - APAAR - is phonetically similar to a word, which forms a part of the petitioner‟s corporate name.

¶38

As stated above, the name of respondent no.4 company must be read as a whole and it is at once clear that „APAAR Infratech Private Limited‟ does not too nearly resemble „APAR Industries Private Limited‟.

¶39

The contention, that respondent no. 4‟s corporate name too nearly

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

W.P.(C) 5323/2013

¶42

resembles, the petitioner‟s trademark, is also unpersuasive.

¶43

The petitioner has enclosed a tabular statement along with its petition indicating the trademarks registered in its favour or in favour of its group companies. The examination of the said statement indicates that although, the petitioner is a registered proprietor of trademarks which include the word „APAR‟, the petitioner is not the registered owner of the word mark „APAR‟ or „APAAR‟.

¶44

The petitioner also owns two labels which are as under:-

¶45

SR. NO.	TRADEMARK NO./CLASS	TRADEMARK	JOURNAL	STATUS
01	338274B/9	APAR PVT. LTD.	Journal No. 1074S / Page No. 34	REGISTERED & RENEWED TILL 10/07/2018
02	338275/5	APAR PVT. LTD.	Journal No. 1074S / Page No. 22	REGISTERED & RENEWED TILL 10/07/2018

¶46

Respondent no.4‟s name also cannot be stated to be identical with or similar to the aforesaid registered trademarks.

¶47

In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶48

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶49

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 RK

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

W.P.(C) 5323/2013

Apar Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apar Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Jain Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naya Samaj Appejay Parents Association and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pradeep Chander Vs Indraprastha Power Gen. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Rakesh Choubey Vs Election Commission of India & Anr.

Balwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahendar Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary and Anr.

M/S Impressions Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Virender Kumar

Neeraj Pant Vs Public Work Department & Ors.

Bhawna Sood Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Jawahar Lal Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Madan Abbott & Ors. Vs Registrar of Companies & Ors.

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Late K L Hora Memorial Educational Society (Regd.) Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Mahajan Polishers Vs Gnct and Ors.