Ministry of Corporate Affairs: In a significant ruling on corporate name disputes, the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Delhi, allowed an application filed by ONA Forensics Laboratory under Section 16(1)(a), Companies Act, 2013 (the Act) and directed DNA Forensic Test Solutions Private Limited to change its name within 3 months. Rejecting the respondent’s objection that an applicant without a registered trade mark cannot invoke Section 16, the authority clarified that Section 16(1)(a) of the Act provides an independent remedy where a subsequently incorporated company’s name is identical with or deceptively resembles the name of an existing company.
Facts and Background
The applicant contended that the respondent’s name closely resembled its existing corporate name and was likely to cause confusion among customers, stakeholders, and the public. It was further submitted that the similarity adversely affected the applicant’s goodwill and business identity. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that its name had been approved by the Registrar of Companies after due scrutiny and that the 2 names were distinct. It also relied on the fact that it had obtained statutory registrations such as PAN and GST after incorporation.
Issue for Determination
Whether the name “DNA Forensic Test Solutions Private Limited” was identical with or too nearly resembled the name “ONA Forensics Laboratory Private Limited” so as to attract Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
Analysis
The Regional Director observed that the respondent Company had been incorporated subsequent to the applicant company and that the dominant expression “DNA Forensic/Forensics” was common to both names. The authority found that the resemblance was sufficient to create confusion and could lead the public to believe that the 2 entities were connected or operated under common management. It was held that the approval of the respondent’s name at the time of incorporation and the grant of PAN or GST registration could not justify the continued use of a name that closely resembled that of an existing company. Considering the likelihood of confusion, the Regional Director concluded that the applicant had made out a case for rectification of name under Section 16.
Decision
Allowing the application, the Regional Director directed the respondent Company to change its name within three months in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The jurisdictional Registrar of Companies was directed to take appropriate action in case of non-compliance, and the Central Registration Centre was instructed to consider the respondent’s proposed new name in accordance with law.
[ONA Forensics Laboratory (P) Ltd v. DNA Forensic Test Solutions (P) Ltd., decided on 8-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Applicant: Naman Kapoor, Advocate
