[ad_1]
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to contemplate afresh whether or not the phrase “lulu” within the title of Coolulu Sports Private Limited firm is equivalent to Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited a well-known trademark.
A single decide bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Coolulu Sports Private Limited and put aside the order handed by Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, date 30-03-2022, restraining the corporate from utilizing the phrase “lulu” from the title of its identify. The court docket has directed the Regional Director to cross orders afresh inside three months and until then it has directed the events to take care of established order.
Lulu Malls had complained to the Competent Authority that the petitioner is utilizing the identify that’s too close to to its identify. On such a grievance, a present trigger discover was issued to the petitioner below Section 16 of the Companies Act.
Section 16 offers with rectification of identify of the Company. The statute mandates that if by means of inadvertence or in any other case, a Company on its first registration or on its registration by a brand new 10 identify is registered by a reputation which is simply too practically resembles the commerce mark of such proprietor below the Trade Marks Act, 1999, on an utility being made inside 3 years of such incorporation or registration or change of identify of the Company, within the opinion of the Central Government is equivalent with or too practically resembles to an present commerce mark, it could direct the Company to vary its identify and the Company shall change its identify or incorporate a brand new identify because the case could also be, inside three months from the date of such course.
The petitioner filed its objections and later, on consideration of the fabric earlier than it the 2nd respondent/Regional Director, passes an order below Section 16(1)(b) of the Act directing the petitioner that it mustn’t use the phrase ‘Lulu’ in its identify and additional directs that the identify of the Company needs to be modified inside 3 months from the date of the order i.e., thirtieth March, 2022.
The petitioner contended that there’s a world of distinction between ‘Lulu’ and ‘Coolulu’. Therefore, the order which directs elimination of the identify ‘Lulu’ from the title identify of the petitioner doesn’t bear any utility of thoughts to any of the provisions of regulation, it was argued.
Further it was stated that plethora of fabric was positioned earlier than the 2nd respondent to display that the identify of the petitioner and the identify of the third respondent usually are not related. However, these objections weren’t thought-about by the 2nd respondent, it was averred.
The bench on going by means of the order handed by the Regional Director, stated “There is no consideration worth the name by the 2nd respondent. The purport of Section 16 is not even considered or the purport of Trademarks Act becoming applicable to Section 16 is again ignored. The order does not demonstrate even a semblance of application of mind for there are no reasons recorded by way of consideration of the contentions of both the parties.”
Noting that within the order it’s opined that the identify is prone to create confusion between the 2 and, subsequently, it needs to be eliminated, the bench stated “This is not the purport of Section 16.”
It noticed “An order which determines rights of parties, in the case at hand is the rights of parties qua their names, it is trite, should bear application of mind. An order which does not contain any reason is an unreasonable order.”
Following which it held “The phrase would become applicable to the impugned order, as there are no reasons indicated qua the contentions of the respective parties as well as the mandate of the statute.”
It added “Therefore, the 2nd respondent (Regional Director) is required to pass order afresh by recording reasons for the contentions so advanced both by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent (Lulu Malls), which would bear the stamp of application of mind.”
Accordingly it partly allowed the petition.
Case Title: Coolulu Sports Private Limited And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15087 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Date of Order: 05-04-2023
Appearance: Advocate Manu P Kulkarni a/w Advocates Shristi Widge, Sharan Balakrishna, Manoj Raikar for petitioner.
CGC Anupama Hegde for R1, R2, R4.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi a/w Rashmi Deshpande for R3.
[adinserter block=”4″]
[ad_2]
Source link