Panchhi Petha Store Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court has ruled that the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, exceeded his jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of a trademark while considering an application for the rectification of a company name under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court emphasized that the Regional Director’s power under this section is limited to directing a name change if it too nearly resembles an existing company name or a registered trademark, and does not extend to adjudicating disputed trademark ownership.
The judgment came in the case of Panchhi Petha Store Versus Union of India & Ors., where the petitioner challenged an order dated August 27, 2018, passed by the Regional Director. The petitioner had sought rectification or cancellation of the name of Respondent No.4 company, “PANCCHI PETHA PRIVATE LIMITED,” from the Register of Companies, arguing that the name was identical or similar to the petitioner’s registered and prior used trademark “PANCHHI.”
The impugned order from the Regional Director had rejected the petitioner’s application. A crucial observation in that order, which the petitioner specifically challenged, was the finding that “the applicant is not the owner of the trademark in his name and the actual owner of the trademark is in the name of ‘Subhash Chander’.” Based on this finding, the Regional Director concluded that the application for rectification/change of name could not be entertained under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act.
