Email ID Not Available
(Sem V) B.A. LLB., Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (C.G.)
Volume - 3,
Issue - 4,
Year - 2012
In this case, NNE Pharmapalan (P) Ltd., filed a representation before Regional Director under section 22 seeking a direction that petitioner-company incorporated on a later date with name CGMP Pharmapalan (P.) Ltd. should change its name. Regional Director concluded that use by petitioner of word “Pharmaplan” in its name would have a misleading effect in mind of general public and as such, it was a fit case for issue of direction under sec 22(1)(b) and directed petitioner to delete word “Pharmaplan” from its existing name and change its name to some other name. The Delhi High Court held that since name of both companies structurally and phonetically too nearly resembled each other, Regional Director was right in directing petitioner to change its name.
It was held that no error have been committed that Petitioner's name too nearly resembles name of Respondent No. 2. Prominent part of both names of the companies are coined word. When compared as a whole, it was apparent that two names structurally and phonetically too nearly resemble each other. Court is unable to find anything perverse in conclusion arrived at by Respondent No. 1. Petition was dismissed.
Cite this article:
Sumalya Goswami. CGMP Pharmapalan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(4): October-December, 2012, 493-496.