ICAI vs. ICTPI: Name Similarity Dispute Dismissed by RD

B.S.K.RAO, Auditor & Tax Advocate,

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) filed an application under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking the removal or rectification of the name “Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India” (ICTPI), arguing it was deceptively similar to their name. ICAI contended that ICTPI’s name created confusion among students and the public, suggesting an affiliation, and that ICTPI was unlawfully regulating tax practitioners without statutory mandate. ICTPI countered that their name was approved after due diligence, they had established their own identity, and their courses were distinct and vocationally focused, with approvals from relevant skill development bodies. They also highlighted the distinctiveness of the titles “Chartered Accountant” and “Chartered Tax Practitioner,” their registered trademarks, and the lack of ICAI’s monopoly over the word “Chartered.” The Regional Director (SER), Hyderabad, after considering the arguments and undertakings provided by ICTPI to include disclaimers about non-affiliation with ICAI on their website and course materials, dismissed ICAI’s application. The Regional Director concluded that there was no deceptive similarity between the names, especially considering the distinct fields of operation and the educated user base of ICTPI’s courses. The order also noted that the word “Chartered” is generic and used by various non-statutory bodies.

F.NO: 11/RD(SER)/Sec. 16/ICAI/40/2024 /297
BEFORE THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
(SOUTH EAST REGION)
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
HYDERABAD
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 16
OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

1. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg,
New Delhi-110 002.
(A statutory body constituted under the
Provisions of The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949)
Represented by its Secretary
Shri. CA (Dr.) Jai Kumar Batra – Applicant

Vs

2. Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India,
TPI Bhavan, 313, 9th Main, 26th Cross,
Banashankari Stage-II, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560 072.
(A Section 8 Public Company registered under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 2013)
Represented by its Directors – Respondent.

ORDER UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE COMPANIES ACT. 2013

1. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), has filed an application under section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 for removal/rectification of the name of “Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India, Bengaluru (Respondent) having CIN U85100KA2020NPL131334 for being deceptively similar to “The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India”. ICAI is a Statutory body set up by an Act of Parliament namely “The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949” with a statutory mandate to regulate and develop the profession of Chartered Accountants and inter-alia to conduct Chartered Accountancy examination across the country. The respondent company Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India, having CIN U85100KA2020NPL131334 was incorporated as a non-profit company on 6th January 2020 and is involved in imparting courses for Tax practitioners. As the Respondent Company is falling under the jurisdiction of RD (SER), Hyderabad, the present application has been filed u/s 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Applicant.

2. Applicant in its application has stated that over a period of time, ICAI has achieved recognition as a premier accounting body not only in the country but also globally, for maintaining highest professional standards in Auditing & Accounting areas and for sustaining stringent examination and education standards the profession of Chartered Accountancy.

3. Since 1949, the profession has grown by leaps and bounds in terms of its members and student base. At present, there are more than 4,00,000 members (Chartered Accountants) of the Institute. ICAI has garnered significant repute and good will amongst the Chartered Accountants fraternity in India as well as Globally and it is well known in the field of tax practitioners as most of its members (Chartered Accountants) are tax practitioners besides rendering other services.

4. Applicant has stated that they have been receiving several phone calls from students and members and also from general public from various parts of the country enquiring as to whether the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India, whose name is deceptively similar to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India is affiliated to the ICAI. It is pertinent to mention that Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India, is conducting the course namely Chartered Tax Practitioners Course enrolling the persons as the Tax Practitioners and regulating the profession of Tax Practitioners in India without any Statutory mandate. It is alleged that the Institute of Tax Practitioners India has adopted the name with an intention to create confusion in the minds of the students and general public at large.

5. The case of the applicant is that the name “Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India” is almost identical and to nearly resembles with the name of the applicant i.e. “The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India”. It gives misleading impression to the public at large that the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India is related to ICAI or somehow associated/affiliated with ICAI. In addition, the name “Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners of India Limited” is also in contravention of Section 24A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and using the name of the Institute/abbreviation/its emblem or any other deceptively similar name/emblem/mark which is identical with the Institute is not permissible under Section 24A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The special privilege of conducting audit, special audit and even representation before assessment and appellate authorities are reserved only for the members of ICAI u/s 141 of the Companies Act, 2013 and only qualified Chartered Accountants can be appointed as auditors of a company. The Chartered Tax Practitioner Course offered by the respondent is similar to the Chartered Accountancy Course offered by ICAI and such act without any sanction of law is unlawful and may amount to passing off.

6. The applicant has stated that if the name of the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India is continued and not removed/ rectified or changed, it will cause irreparable damage to the reputation and goodwill of prestigious institute which it accumulated over many years. Additionally, the use of the word “Chartered” in the name of the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India will create a false impression in the mind of general public that such institution has been created by a Charter/Statue and will create illusion and deception amongst the members of general public.

7. Upon receipt of present application, the Regional Director had called for the comments/objections from the Respondent Company vide his letter dated 05.03.2024. It is relevant that the applicant did not file any eform RD-1 as there is no provision in the system for any other person except a corporate body to file the form. While the application was pending with the Regional Director ICAI filed a Writ Petition before the Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 21.10.2024 against Union of India and others and the Hon’ble High Court has issued an interim order dated 11.11.2024 staying certain operations of the respondent. The Hon’ble High Court after hearing the matter at length vide its final judgement dated 20.12.2024 has directed the Regional Director to hear the matter on 29.01.2025 and directed the parties to appear before the Regional Director on the said date. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 29.01.2025 and 28.02.25 and orders were reserved. Both the parties filed their written submissions. During the hearing held n 28.02.2025 the parties were also advised to resolve the matter amicably through mediation, however, it seems from the emails shared by the respondent that nothing came out of it.

8. The respondent has stated in its reply that the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India, (Respondent) having CIN U85100KA2020NPL131334 was incorporated as a non-profit company on 6th January 2020. The respondent company has coined its name which was approved by the Central Registration Centre (CRC) after all due diligence. The company has been in operation for more than three years and has established its own identity among the stake holders. All the directors and employees of the Company have worked hard to establish the goodwill and reputation of the Company. The company is a non profit company, having charitable objects and received academic approvals for courses from National Skill Qualification Committee under the skill development initiatives of the Government of India under the supervision of the Skill Regulatory Authority National Council (NCVET) and its awarding body Management & Entrepreneurship and Professional Skills Council (MEPSC). It is running nationally recognised vocational and academic courses for the members.

9. The respondent has stated in its reply as under:

i) Distinctiveness of professionals Titles: The terms ‘Chartered Accountant’ and ‘Accountant’ as well as ‘Chartered Tax Practitioner’ and ‘Tax Practitioner’ are inherently distinct. In Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India and Others v. Council of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Others (Supreme Court of India, 2007), it was held that for a claim of passing off to succeed, there must be clear evidence of confusion (para 25). The respective organizations’ areas of expertise, functions, and operational scopes differ significantly. As stated in the judgment of M/s Vajiram & Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP v. M/S Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2023), the distinctiveness of services and the educated target consumer base, significantly reduce the probability of confusion (para 3.7). Hence the public in general, can clearly differentiate between the two institutions based on their unique offerings and branding.

ii) The titles ‘Chartered Tax Practitioner -CTPr’ with that of ‘Chartered Accountant – CA’ are visually, artistically, structurally, phonetically, conceptually different, and distinct from each other in all respects.

iii) When there is a clear nomenclature and title, there exists a legitimate scope for functioning members and their organizations to operate independently. This is a natural right guaranteed under the Constitution, ensuring that professional bodies can operate without undue restrictions based on nomenclature. As highlighted in S. Sukumar vs. Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, and Others (Supreme Court of India, 2018), it is also essential to balance the interests of various stakeholders in the profession (para 50) in the larger public interest of innovation in the education sector.

iv) The respondents hold two (2) Trademarks (Nos. 4494489 and 4494490), both are authorised by the Trademark Authority and the trademarks of the respondent “CTPI – INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED TAX PRACTITIONERS INDIA” & “INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED TAX PRACTITIONERS INDIA – ICTPI” bear no deceptive resemblance or conflict with the trademark of the ICAI “CA- CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT” Consequently, there is no deceptive similarity, deception nor any conflict between these two marks.

iv) ICAI is a statutory body and is not a company registered with the MCA in the traditional sense and therefore, it does not fall under the jurisdiction applicable to companies registered with the Registrar of Companies for Trademark claims.

10. The respondents have emphasized on the distinctions between the two institutions, the lack of evidence for public confusion in the names of both entities, the legitimacy of their names and trademarks, and the importance of innovation through healthy competition in the educational landscape.

11. The respondents also referred to the observations of the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 16.12.2024 which stated that “that respondent company has never projected itself to be a licencing authority for a Tax Practitioner, GST Practitioner or Customs Broker under the respective statutes and it is the claim of respondent company that for becoming a member of respondent company, the person should already have been registered as a Tax Practitioner, GST Practitioner or Customs Broker and in this regard, if the petitioner has any doubt or grievance, a disclaimer would be put up on the website of respondent company. Hence, he seeks for and is granted two days time to file an affidavit indicating the disclaimer and the scope of activities of respondent company”. Accordingly, Respondent Company had filed an affidavit on 18.12.2024. In response thereto, the petitioner had filed a memo on 19.12.2024, seeking some additional grievances to be included in the affidavit of Respondent Company.

12. In further response to the said memo, Respondent Company has filed further affidavit on 19.12.2024. The respondent relied upon the affidavits filed and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in this regard stating “Accordingly, the memo filed by the petitioner being additional grievance of the petitioner as regard the affidavit filed by respondent company on 18.12.2024, the further affidavit which has been filed, answers those grievances and the petitioner has no objection for the said undertakings dated 18.12.2024 and 19.12.2024, vide the aforesaid affidavits, to be taken on record and for the above petition to be disposed of in terms of the said affidavits”. The respondent has also relied upon the act that the Hon’ble High Court declined the prayers of the petitioner’s institute as “does not survive for consideration”.

13. The applicant ICAI in its written submissions has reiterated the submissions made in its application and has further stated as under:

a) The respondent Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India, is conducting the course namely ‘Chartered Tax Practitioner Course’ enrolling the persons(s) as the Tax Practitioners” and regulating the profession of Tax practitioners in India without any statutory mandate which is alleged to be at the level of Post Graduate Diploma in Taxation as per National Credit Framework, especially to Income Tax Practitioners and/or GST Practitioners, in collaboration with MEPSC and NVCET and is a vocational course.

b) The Respondent charges membership fees from its members, which clearly defies the object of a Non Profit Company. Also, a mere Section 8 Company cannot by itself regulate profession and award, a qualification without statutory mandate.

c) It is stated that Respondent has been formed with the sole objective to deceive the general public that it is a similar body like the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to regulate the profession of Tax Practitioners in India whereas there is no such profession known as “Chartered Tax Practitioners” in India.

d) The term Chartered is awarded to a profession which is regulated by Statutory Provisions and backed by Parliamentary legislations. In the eyes of law and in the eyes of public, the term ‘Chartered’ when prefixed with a profession, resonates a professional qualification backed by Statutory provisions and a body established by law dedicated to regulating the profession and the members of the Profession,. The word “Chartered” was intentionally chosen for the said wrongful purpose. The term Chartered cannot be construed in general parlance and the plain dictionary meaning of the same cannot be relied upon, as being relied upon by the Respondents.

e) The usage of the word ‘Chartered’ by the Respondent in it’s name is also in contravention of Section 3 read with item No.7 of schedule to The emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

f) The use of the words ‘Chartered’ and ‘India’ in the name of the Respondent are not only prohibited by the above provisions but also in contravention of Section 15A and 24 A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

g) The term ‘Tax Practitioner’ is used widely amongst many qualified Chartered Accountants who are involved in the practice of Income Tax Law and appear before various Income Tax authorities and the alleged qualification awarded by the Respondent, ‘Chartered Tax Practitioner’ is bound to cause confusion amongst general public as it resonates directly with the professional practice of Chartered Accountants. Laymen who intend to seek professional guidance often reach out to Chartered Accountants, relying on their qualification and professional competence for various assignments in the area of Tax Laws, and the term ‘Chartered Tax Practitioners’ will completely mislead them, as placing reliance on the similar terminology, they would assume Chartered Tax Practitioners to be Members of the ICAI/Qualified Chartered Accountants and they would not possess the necessary information or have relevant knowledge to understand that these Chartered Tax Practitioners are in no way associated to the ICAI/ Chartered Accountant Profession.

h) The Chartered Accountants are allowed to practice the areas which are enumerated in Section 2(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 which includes to appearance before Tax Authorities, Tax Consultancy Services and Management Consultancy Services. Chartered Accountants are actively involved in multiple other avenues such as Income tax filings, compliances, financial planning and advice, audits other than statutory audits such as transaction audits, system audits, forensic audits etc. Tax Compliances form an important part of Chartered Accountant practice.

i) The dubious activities of the Respondent in the matter of offering Post Graduate Diploma in Taxation titled as “Chartered Tax Practitioner” and its various tall claims were referred to the Ministry of Finance by the applicant and the same has also been forwarded to CBDT by Ministry of Finance for further necessary action.

j) The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, vide office memorandum dated 19.02.2025 has issued directions to Joint Director E-Gov Section, MCA, HQ and Director General (Corporate Affairs) to consider to place the word ‘Chartered’ in the ban list and to prevent registration of companies with the word ‘Chartered’.

k) Further, no academic qualification is required to appear before the Income Tax Department and Good and Services Tax Department except under Section 44AB of The Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein ‘Accountant’ is defined for the purpose of the said section which is to conduct an audit by a Chartered Accountant recognized as a member of the Applicant. Further, for appearance before various Tax Authorities, only the recognized persons are authorized in which the professional named as Chartered Tax Practitioner does not find any mention.

l) The Respondent seeks to create a separate class of tax practitioners without any mandate of law with the underlying presumption that tax practitioners are a separate entity working in tax laws and practice. However, the law does not create any such classification of tax practitioners who have to be bestowed with a separate license like the one being issued by the Respondent which is not provided for under any statute.

m) The Respondent does not only contain the word “Chartered” but also includes words like “India” which are also common in “Institute of Chartered Accountants of India”. The same deceives general public as it portrays the Respondent as an All India Organization having national importance which is not the case. The word “Chartered” and “India” is not a generic word and it gives a misleading impression that such body has been formed by an Act of Parliament or having some sort of patronage of Government of India which is not permissible.

14. The respondent has responded to the written submissions of the applicant, reiterating their earlier contentions and further stated as under:

i. The operations of the respondent are lawful and it do not infringe upon the rights or reputation of ICAI, as also examined by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in its order dated 20.12.2024 served on the applicant.

ii. The respondent has been operating for a period exceeding five years and has, during this time, established its distinct identity among relevant stakeholders.

iii. The “Consultant (Chartered Tax Practitioner)” course is duly included in the National Qualification Register of NCVET. The copy of the same was enclosed with the written submissions

iv. The term “Chartered” is commonly employed in general parlance to denote a professional individual who has attained specific qualifications or standards and has acquired membership within a particular professional body. Numerous domestic and international professional institutes utilize the term “Chartered” within their names, operating across various domains unrelated to Chartered Accountants. The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, does not confer upon ICAI a monopoly over the usage of the word “Chartered”. Its use is not exclusive to statutory bodies. Reference is made to Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International EWHC 3330 (Ch), where the court recognized the use of well-known marks in new contexts, provided there is no misrepresentation. Similarly, ICTPI’s use of “Chartered” is within a different context and does not misrepresent its affiliation.

v. There are several companies with the word “Chartered” in their name

vi. There is a need of much larger numbers of tax preparers and practitioners than one accounting membership body can provide. There are more than 1 lakh GST Practitioners outside the reach of ICAI, and a large number of Cas are currently listed as GST Practitioners on the GST portal operated by the Government. The statute never wanted CAs to have a monopoly in taxation or even accounting or it would have stated so.

vii. The name “Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India” is distinctly different from “The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India” in terms of its visual, phonetic, artistical and conceptual aspects.

viii. The respective functions and areas of operation of tax practitioners and chartered accountants are distinct domains, and there exists no reasonable likelihood of confusion between the two professions.

ix. The suffixes “Accountants” and “Tax Practitioners” serve to clearly differentiate the two entities. The public is unlikely to be misled or confused the names of the two institutions.

x. The respondent is not engaged in regulating a profession in the manner of a statutory body but is instead establishing standards for its members, a fundamental right, which is permissible under the Companies Act, 2013 too. The regulation of professions is not solely a sovereign function; private bodies can establish standards and certifications, as elucidated in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Mazdoor Sangh AIR 1991 SC 1132, wherein the court discussed the autonomy of professional bodies in setting standards.

xi. The course offered by the respondent is a professional course designed to equip tax practitioners with advanced skills and knowledge. The collaboration with recognized bodies such as MEPSC lends additional credibility to its certification. As held in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC /, the quality and content of the course determine its nature. The courses and certifications offered by the respondent are in the distinct field of tax practice. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Council of Architecture (2019) 8 SCC 93, the court emphasized the need to define the boundaries of professional bodies’ jurisdictions and the respondent operates outside ICAI’s statutory jurisdiction. None of its courses or certifications resemble or are identical to those offered by ICAI. The courses offered by the respondent are distinct and cater to a different segment of professionals.

xii. The respondent operates within the established legal framework and ensures that its members adhere to high standards of professionalism and ethical conduct. It offers rigorous examinations and conducts continuous professional development opportunities to its members, consistent with practices observed in other professional bodies. It is incorporated with the objective of promoting all-round upliftment of professional tax practitioners in India.

xiii. As a Section 8 Company, it operates on a not-for-profit basis. The membership fees charged by the institute are utilized to cover administrative costs and to fund educational and professional development programs for its members.

xiv. The application is misconceived, frivolous, and devoid of merit. It has been filed with the sole intention of stifling the growth of legacy tax practitioners’ nascent body and to maintain a monopoly over the field of accounting and taxation. ICAI, being a statutory body, is abusing its position to initiate vexatious litigation against a legitimate professional body. The application fails to establish any cause of action against the respondent. There is no infringement of any legal right of ICAI, nor has any loss or damage been caused to it by the existence of the respondent.

xv. The services provided by the respondent are to a specific class of individuals and professionals who are well aware of the distinction between a Chartered Accountant and a Chartered Tax Practitioner. Therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion. In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs Coca Cola Company and Ors, the Supreme Court held that while dealing with a case of passing off, the scope of the inquiry is not limited to a comparison of the names or marks used by the parties but the nature of the goods or services provided by them, the class of purchasers, the extent of the reputation of the trade, and other surrounding circumstances must also be considered. In the present case, the services provided by the respondent are clearly distinguishable from those provided by ICAI. Therefore, there is no likelihood of deception or confusion.

xvi. There is no Infringement of the Emblems & Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950:The word ‘Chartered’ is not specified in the Schedule to the Act; therefore, there is no question of any infringement.

xvii. There is no Contravention of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 as the respondent is not performing any of the functions exclusively reserved for Chartered Accountants under the said Act. In The Institute Of Chartered vs Shaival Gandhi on 12 January, 2017, the High Court of Gujarat held that the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, does not grant any monopoly to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India over the use of the word ‘Chartered.’

xviii. There is no Misrepresentation by the respondent. It has never claimed to be a statutory body or to be affiliated with ICAI. In fact it has its own distinct identity and objectives. In Laxmikant V Patel vs Chetan hat Shah and Anr. on 17 April, 2001, the Supreme Court held that in order to establish a case of passing off, it must be shown that the defendant has made a false representation leading to confusion or deception. In the present case, ICTPI has not made any false representation; therefore, there is no question of any passing off.

xix. “Chartered Accountant” is a specifically protected term, but that does not automatically exclude variations concerning tax practice yoked with “Chartered”. The name of Cost Accountants Institute was also alleged to be identical by the applicant in another petition; and the Hon’ble Court rejected that claim long ago.

15. The respondent has also relied upon various judgements, which were listed in the written submissions.

16. The matter has been examined in detail. It is abundantly clear that the name of the respondent is not identical to the applicants. The contention of the applicant that the names are deceptively similar has to be examined in light of the users of both the institutes. In this regard it is observed that the field of operation of both the applicant and respondent are completely different. Chartered Accountants have a monopoly in audit and accounts as their name applies and which is their primary profession whereas Tax practitioners have no role in audit and accounts and deal exclusively in taxation matters. It is admitted by the applicant themselves that one does not need any professional qualification to be a Tax Practitioner, therefore the claim of ICAI to exclusivity in tax practice is misconceived. It is also relevant that though one does not need to be a professional to be a Tax Practitioner but at the same time one needs to be well educated to be tax practitioner and understand the nuances of the tax laws. It is a fact that the persons need to be registered tax practitioners before they join the courses offered by the respondent. Therefore, it is incomprehensible that such well educated persons who are the users of the courses offered by the respondent can be misled in believing that it has any affiliation to ICAI or that it is backed by a statute. The applicant has not brought any evidence on record depicting such misconception in the minds of the users. Hence, the names are not even deceptively similar. Further, the respondent has a registered trademark in the name of the company.

17. Further, as already stated in the judgement order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 20.12.2024 the grievances of the applicant have been answered by the respondent in the affidavits dated 18.12.2024 and 19.12.2024 filed before the Hon’ble High Court which were taken on record and the matter was disposed off in terms of the said affidavits with the consent of the applicant petitioner. The respondent has already undertaken before the Hon’ble High Court in the said affidavits, to take the following steps.

a) Publish a disclaimer on the website page http_:/./wvvw.ie Lin/ stating that the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India is Not affiliated to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

b) Include the term ‘Not affiliated to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India’ in all the course materials.

c) Display in the website page http://www.ietpi.in/ stating that the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India does not issue any licenses to practice as a ‘Income Tax Practitioner’, `GST Practitioner’ or ‘Customs Broker’.

d) Display in the website page http://www.ictpi.iiiletprskill and also in http://www.ietpi.in/rpl that the scope of the ‘Skill Qualification Course, Consultant: (Chartered Tax Practitioner) facilitated by the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India is to enable vocational training and it does not automatically entitle the prospective student to practice or enroll as a tax practitioner except as provided in the respective statutes.

e) The Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India shall

• Prominently display on their website page https://ietni.in that the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India is not affiliated in any manner to the tipp://jgii.in of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the activities of the company do not deal with any aspect in relation to the profession regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India;
• Include the term ‘Not affiliated to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India’ in all the course materials, academic material (online and offline) and publicity material apart from the disclaimer published on the website;
• Display in the website page https://ictpi.in as well as the brochures, promotional and academic material (both online and offline) that the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India does not issue any licenses to practice as a Income Tax Practitioner, GST Practitioner or Customs Broker and the courses offered by The Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India is not an essential pre-requisite for obtaining any licenses from the respective departments/authorities;
• Display on the website and the course materials that the scope of the course offered by the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India is to enable vocational training and does not entitle the prospective student to practice or enroll as a tax practitioner except as provided in the respective statutes.

18. In view of the aforementioned undertakings by the respondent, there is no scope for any user to be misled that the respondent is connected with the applicant in any manner.

19. The primary objection of the applicant is to the use of the word “Chartered” in the name of the respondent. In this regard it is observed that the word Chartered is a generic word and is used frequently in different connotations and the contention of the applicant that it resonates a professional qualification backed by Statutory provisions, is not acceptable. There are many companies with the word “Chartered” in their names which are not backed by any statute.

20. In view of the facts discussed above and taking into consideration the documents and averments made by both the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no deceptive similarity in the names of the applicant and the respondent, therefore the present application is dismissed.

Dated at Hyderabad on 11th day of April 2025.

(RICHA KUKREJA)
REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SER)

To

1. M/s. The Institute of Chartered Accountant of India,
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi-110 002.

2. Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India,
TPI Bhavan, 313, 9th Main, 26th Cross,
Banashankari Stage-II, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560 072.

3. The Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Karnataka, Bangalore.