Company Names Tribunal

Last updated

The Company Names Tribunal was created on 1 October 2008 in the United Kingdom and is a direct result of the coming into force of Section 69 of the Companies Act 2006. [1] The Company Names Tribunal is administered by the UK Intellectual Property Office and only deals with complaints under Section 69 of the Companies Act 2006.

Contents

A Company Names Adjudicator has been appointed to deal with complaints to the Company Names Tribunal. [2]

Fundamental concepts

In essence any party can file a complaint to the Company Names Tribunal with regards the registration of a company name under the Companies Act whose name is the same as that associated with the complainant in which the complainant has goodwill in a business associated with the name or that the new company name is sufficiently similar to such a name and that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the complainant.

It is not necessary for the complainant to have a company registered under the Companies Act to file a complaint, merely that they have goodwill in a company name or brand name associated with a company or trading activity.

Opportunistic registrations

The Company Names Tribunal has made it clear that it will only deal with so-called 'opportunistic registrations' of company names.

The Company Names Tribunal has stated that opportunistic company name registrations share similar characteristics to opportunistic Internet domain name registrations ('cyber squatting'). An example of an opportunistic company name registration is when someone registers one or more variations of the name of a well-known company in order to get the latter company to buy the registration(s). Another example might be where someone knows that a merger is about to take place between two companies and so registers one or more variations of the name that the newly formed commercial entity is likely to require. The registration(s) would be opportunistic in that the registration holder’s purpose in obtaining the registration was to cash in on the other entity’s fame.

If a company name registration is not viewed as opportunistic then a complainant must file a complaint to Companies House direct, and not to the Company Names Tribunal, under Section 67 of the Companies Act 2006 alleging that the name is "too like" an existing company name registration.

Defences to a complaint

The Companies Act 2006 lists the following defences to a complaint:

a) that the name was registered before the start of the activities on which the applicant relies to show it has goodwill/reputation; or

b) that the company is operating under the name or is planning to do so and has incurred substantial start-up costs, or was operating under the name but is now dormant; or

c) that the name was registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and the company name is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business (an ‘off the shelf company’); or

d) that the name was adopted in good faith; or

e) that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

First decision

The first decision of the Company Names Tribunal was issued on 3 December 2008, when the Tribunal in an uncontested application forced the change of name of the company Coke Cola Limited following an application by The Coca-Cola Company. [3]

Related Research Articles

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

Domain name scams are types of Intellectual property scams or confidence scams in which unscrupulous domain name registrars attempt to generate revenue by tricking businesses into buying, selling, listing or converting a domain name. The Office of Fair Trading in the United Kingdom has outlined two types of domain name scams which are "Domain name registration scams" and "Domain name renewal scams".

Small-claims courts have limited jurisdiction to hear civil cases between private litigants. Courts authorized to try small claims may also have other judicial functions, and go by different names in different jurisdictions. For example, it may be known as a county or magistrate's court. These courts can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa and the United States.

Domain name speculation is the practice of identifying and registering or acquiring Internet domain names as an investment with the intent of selling them later for a profit.

United Kingdom trade mark law provides protection for the use of trade marks in the UK. A trade mark is a way for one party to distinguish themselves from another. In the business world, a trade mark provides a product or organisation with an identity which cannot be imitated by its competitors.

Canadian trademark law

Canadian trademark law provides protection to marks by statute under the Trademarks Act and also at common law. Trademark law provides protection for distinctive marks, certification marks, distinguishing guises, and proposed marks against those who appropriate the goodwill of the mark or create confusion between different vendors' goods or services. A mark can be protected either as a registered trademark under the Act or can alternately be protected by a common law action in passing off.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is an administrative tribunal established in 1977 through the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is directly funded by the Parliament of Canada and is independent of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which refers cases to it for adjudication under the Act.

The Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia [2007] ECHR 258 is a European Court of Human Rights case, concerning Article 11 of the Convention. In the case the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg condemned Moscow City Government's refusal to consider the Church of Scientology of Moscow for registration as a religious organisation, and as a result found that Russia had violated the rights of the Church of Scientology under Articles 11 when "read in the light of Article 9". Specifically, the Court determined that, in denying consideration of registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities "did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community". The Court also awarded the Church €10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €15,000 for costs and expenses.

The Nurses and Midwives Tribunal is a former tribunal that was established in the Australian state of New South Wales which dealt with appeals and complaints of professional misconduct by nurses and midwives. The tribunal generally heard matters after the Nurses and Midwives Board has made a decision or a professional association had referred an issue to the tribunal. The tribunal heard matters in an informal manner in an attempt to do justice in the matter. The tribunal also conducted inquiries into complaints referred by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission.

Trademark Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom) Advertising regulation authority in the United Kingdom

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the self-regulatory organisation of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom. The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. However, its code of advertising practice broadly reflects legislation in many instances. The ASA is not funded by the British government, but by a levy on the advertising industry.

Barloworld Limited is an industrial brand management company, founded in South Africa. Once a large conglomerate with many unrelated businesses, ranging at various times from mining, information technology and building materials to motor vehicles, it has repositioned itself as an industrial brand management company and unbundled many of its assets. Its headquarters are at the sprawling Barlow Park campus in Sandton, Johannesburg. It had been sponsor of the Barloworld cycling team.

The Physiotherapists Tribunal is a former tribunal established in the Australian state of New South Wales which dealt with appeals and complaints of professional misconduct by physiotherapists.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an administrative tribunal in Ontario, Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provincial statute that sets out human or civil rights in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a number of grounds in certain social areas. It is one of the 14 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario. Any person who believes they have been discriminated against under the Human Rights Code may bring an application to the Tribunal.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a statutorily established institution fundamental to the application, determination and up holding of human rights in New Zealand. The tribunal is established under the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993. The Human Rights Review Tribunal is one of two key human rights bodies in New Zealand and provides the mechanism for adjudication and resolution of human rights issues. The jurisdiction of the tribunal extends to cover matters from domestic human rights law, principles given in the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. Complaints may be bought by the Director of Human Rights or where it is deemed not appropriate to do so, a citizen may proceed with a claim at their own cost. The tribunal has the power to grant a wide range of remedies and in making a determination, is not required to give effect to technicalities but rather, the substantial merits of the case. The Human Rights Review tribunal also holds special status within the array of tribunals in New Zealands domestic legal system, with a far more significant legal jurisdiction than other inter partes tribunals. This special status reflects the fact that decisions of the tribunal can have substantial political and societal implications.

<i>Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.</i>

Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was the first case to be decided by the Supreme Court of India on the issue of domain name protection, and dealt with two businesses employing variations on the same mark in their respective domain names.

The Landlord and Tenant Board is an adjudicative tribunal operating in the province of Ontario that provides dispute resolution of landlord and tenant matters under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. It is one of the 14 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario.

Indian company law

Indian company law regulates corporations formed under Section 2(20) of the Indian Companies Act of 2013, superseding the Companies Act of 1956.

Cayman has introduced a new regime for the licensing and registration of directors of investment fund companies that are “regulated” under the Mutual Funds Law and directors of companies registered as “excluded persons” under paragraphs 1 and 4 of Schedule 4 of the Securities Investment and Business Law. Each relevant entity is defined in the Law as a “Covered Entity”.

References

  1. "Companies Act 2006" (PDF). 2006. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  2. Pike, Judi (15 September 2008). "A new body, the Company Names Tribunal, is about to take up its function of adjudicating on opportunistic company name registrations". Law Society of Scotland. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  3. "Company Names Tribunal's first ruling: Coke Cola needs a new name". Pinsent Masons. Retrieved 1 December 2021.