Delhi HC: Complaint Can Trigger Section 16(1)(a) Action to Change Similar Company Name

DNA Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited Vs Union of India And Ors (Delhi High Court)

The Madras High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 08 June 2026 passed by the Regional Director under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, directing the petitioner company, DNA Forensics Test Solution Private Limited, to change its name on the ground that it was similar to and resembled the name of the complainant company, DNA Forensics Laboratory Private Limited.

The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the authority to act under Section 16(1)(a). It contended that Section 16(1)(a) operates differently from Section 16(1)(b). According to the petitioner, while Section 16(1)(b) permits action on an application by the registered proprietor of a trademark, Section 16(1)(a) requires the Central Government to independently form an opinion and exercise suo motu power. Since the impugned proceedings had been initiated on an application made by the complainant company, the petitioner argued that the proceedings under Section 16(1)(a) were not maintainable.

The respondents submitted that, in practice, the Central Government routinely forms its opinion under Section 16(1)(a) based on applications received from existing companies that complain about newly registered companies using similar or identical names.

The petitioner relied upon the decision in M/S T.T. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., W.P. No. 52/2022, particularly paragraphs 19 and 20, where the Court had observed that Section 16(1)(a) confers a suo motu power on the Central Government and that applications under that provision are not maintainable, distinguishing it from Section 16(1)(b), which expressly operates on an application by a registered proprietor of a trademark.