{"id":373344,"date":"2026-01-21T12:00:55","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T06:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=373344"},"modified":"2026-01-21T11:29:24","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T05:59:24","slug":"corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Name Clashes: Resolving Conflicts between Corporate Identities and Trade Marks"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

When it comes to Section 16, Companies Act, what really matters is whether two names look or sound too much alike — not who owns what.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The dispute arises when an existing company or trade mark proprietor finds that a company recently incorporated has a similar or identical name and is likely to deceive the public and dilute its goodwill. Traditionally, disputes related to corporate names were governed by the Companies Act, 1956<\/a> (1956 Act), with an express intent to maintain the integrity of the company register. However, the Companies Act, 2013<\/a> (2013 Act), has broadened its scope of protection by recognising trade mark proprietors expressly in corporate name disputes.<\/p>\n

This evolution is more than legislative reform; it is a conceptual shift in Indian corporate jurisprudence from protection of mere administrative accuracy to protection of commercial identity and intellectual property. The blog proceeds to trace this development chronologically, explaining the transition from Section 22<\/a> of the 1956 Act<\/a> to Section 16<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a>, power of court, limited interference of tribunal, jurisdiction, limitation followed by an analysis of how courts have interpreted, and applied these provisions through landmark judgments.<\/p>\n

Legislative framework: Section 22<\/a> of the 1956<\/a> Act and Section 16<\/a> of the 2013 Act<\/a><\/h2>\n

Back when the Companies Act, 1956<\/a> was in force, Section 22<\/a> let the Central Government step in and order a company to change its name if it matched or looked too much like the name of another registered company, or a registered trade mark. But the Government only had 12 months from the date the company was incorporated or changed its name to act. If the company ignored the order, it had to pay a daily penalty.<\/p>\n

Then the Companies Act, 2013<\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> came along and switched things up. Section 16 replaced the old rule. Now, under Section 16(1)(a)<\/a>, the Government still has the power to force a name change if a company registered a name that is too close to an existing one. This section does not set a time-limit. Without that deadline, people started arguing — can someone really complain about a company’s name long after it is been around, just because there is no set window for objections?<\/p>\n

Section 16(1)(b<\/span>) handles things differently for trade mark owners. If a company’s name is identical or too similar to a registered trade mark, the trade mark owner can ask for a name change — but only within three years of the company’s incorporation or name change. Trade mark owners have a strict deadline, but when it comes to the Government acting on its own under clause (a<\/span>), the expectation is that it will still act reasonably, even without a fixed time-limit.<\/p>\n

Who may apply — when and why<\/h2>\n

There is another interpretation about whether private parties can file Section 16(1)(a)<\/a>. The Madras High Court in T.T. Ltd.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/a>2<\/sup><\/a>, settled this stating that clause (a<\/span>) is just for the Central Government. Trade mark owners or anyone else cannot rely on it — they have to file Section 16(1)(b<\/span>) instead, which lays out a specific process and a set deadline. Courts have also made clear that if a law does not spell out a deadline, the authority in charge cannot just wait forever. They need to act within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court said as much in cases like Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin<\/span> v. Fatmabai Ibrahim<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a> and Union of India<\/span> v. Citi Bank N.A.<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a> that If someone sits on their rights for too long, the law loses its certainty and fairness. So, even the Central Government cannot dig up old cases under Section 16(1)(a)<\/a> years — maybe decades — after a company has already been set up. The reasonable time-frame must be interpreted in harmony with the older provision under Section 22<\/a>, which allowed only twelve months for such action.<\/p>\n

How to decide the jurisdiction of regional director<\/h2>\n

The location of the company’s registered office determines the jurisdiction of the Regional Director (RD) of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under both the current Section 16<\/a>, Companies Act, 2013<\/a> and the previous Section 22<\/a> of the repealed Companies Act, 1956<\/a>. Name rectification and related proceedings will be decided by the RD who has jurisdiction over the geographic area where the company’s Registrar of Companies (ROC) is located.<\/p>\n

For a company registered in Uttarakhand, the ROC concerned5<\/sup><\/a> is ROC — Uttarakhand (Dehradun), which falls under the jurisdiction of the Northern Regional Director, New Delhi; whereas a company registered in Jaipur, Rajasthan comes under ROC — Rajasthan (Jaipur), which is governed by the North Western Regional Director, Ahmedabad, and accordingly any proceedings under Section 16<\/a>, Companies Act, 2013<\/a> must be filed before the respective RD based on the location of the company’s registered office against which applicant wants to file rectification application.<\/p>\n

Judicial development and chronological case law analysis<\/h2>\n

Courts have played a big part in shaping how Sections 22 and 16 work. If you look at the big cases over the years, you see a steady evolution — getting clearer about what counts as resemblance, who has the power to act, how long someone can wait to file, and where the RD’s authority stops.<\/p>\n

1. Company name scrutiny prevails over trade mark findings<\/span><\/p>\n

In CGMP Pharmaplan (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/a>6<\/sup><\/a>, the petitioner tried to keep “Pharmaplan” in its company name, arguing that a civil court had already found no deceptive similarity with another trade mark. However, the High Court dismissed that assertion stating that said company law uses stricter tests than trade mark law. Even if there is just a close resemblance — no actual confusion needed — the name can be changed. The Court made it clear that the RD can decide on resemblance independently, and company law works on its own track, separate from intellectual property law, even though they sometimes overlap.<\/p>\n

2. The Madras High Court in Shaktiman Equipments<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a>, the Court looked at the rights of prior users and the weight of goodwill. Here, the company “Shaktiman Equipments” popped up in 2019, while Tirth Agro had already been using “Shaktiman” as a trade mark for over sixty years. The RD ordered rectification because the names were identical, and the court backed that up. The reasoning was blunt: If the names are identical, confusion is likely, even if the businesses are not in the same field. Prior users get stronger protection, and even if the new company did not mean to copy, the name still has to go. The main takeaway? It is all about the likelihood of association in the public’s mind — not whether the businesses overlap.<\/p>\n

3. Courts protect well-known corporate prefixes from misuse that may mislead an ordinary person<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Similarly, the issue raised before the Telangana High court in GMR Spintex<\/span> v. Regional Director<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a> whether a textile company could use the “GMR” prefix. The established “GMR Group” objected, and the RD told the petitioner to drop “GMR” from its name. The High Court agreed. They said you do not need identical businesses for there to be a problem famous corporate prefix that can mislead people into thinking there is a connection. The test? What would an ordinary person with an imperfect memory think? The Court also made it clear that timing matters, but trade mark rectification follows the idea of “reasonable time”, not a hard deadline. It is all about protecting big, recognisable names from getting watered down or misused.<\/p>\n

4. Determination on the applicability and limitation of Section 16(1)(a)<\/span><\/p>\n

That Madras High court in T.T. Ltd. case<\/span><\/a>9<\/sup><\/a> made it clear that private parties cannot file applications under Section 16(1)(a)<\/a>, Companies Act, 2013<\/a>. That power belongs only to the Central Government. A registered trade mark owner can file application under Section 16(1)(b<\/span>) within three years from when the company was incorporated or changed its name. Now, even though Section 16(1)(a<\/span>) does not spell out a time-limit, the Court said the Government still needs to act within a reasonable time — pretty much like the old twelve-month window under Section 22<\/a> of the 1956 Act<\/a>. In this case, the companies had been around for years, so these petitions were just too late. The Government was right to reject them. The Court also threw out the writ petitions, not just because of the delay, but also because the petitioner had already tried and failed to get relief in a trade mark suit.<\/p>\n

5. Trade mark ownership disputes lie outside Section 16 proceedings<\/span><\/p>\n

The most recent case of the Delhi High Court in Panchhi Petha Store<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/a>10<\/sup><\/a>, really spelled out what the RD can and cannot do. Two parties fought over the famous “Panchhi Petha” name from Agra. The RD tried to figure out who owned the trade mark, siding with one party. The High Court was not having it — they said the RD went too far. His job is only to decide if names are too similar, not who really owns the mark or whether there is infringement. Ownership disputes belong in Intellectual Property (IP) Tribunals or civil courts. The High Court also said its own role under Article 226 is just to check if the RD followed the law and was fair — not to second-guess the resemblance decision. This case drew a clear line around the RD’s authority in company name rectification.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

When it comes to Section 16, what really matters is whether two names look or sound too much alike — not who owns what. The Registrar of Companies can only check for that resemblance, nothing more. Also, trade mark owners now get legal recognition, but they have to move fast — they get three years to raise objections under Section 16(1)(b<\/span>). Even though the law does not always spell out deadlines, there is something called “reasonable time”, and it keeps the authorities from dragging their feet. When disputes land in court, High Courts do not act as appeal courts — they just make sure everything stays on track.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

* Legal counsel, Shubhashish Homes Developers Private Limited (A part of J.K. Jajoo Venture). Author can be reached at: adv.deveshagarwal@gmail.com.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> Companies Act, 2013<\/a>, S. 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 9527<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> (1997) 6 SCC 71<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> (2022) 19 SCC 188<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies, available at <https:\/\/www.mca.gov.in\/content\/mca\/global\/en\/contact-us\/roc.html<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2387<\/a> : (2010) 159 Comp Cas 231.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 11796.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4579.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> T.T. Ltd.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 9527<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8188<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Devesh Agarwal*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":373345,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[97227,97224,97221,97225,97222,97223,97226],"class_list":["post-373344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-company-name-rectification","tag-corporate-identity-protection","tag-corporate-name-disputes","tag-regional-director-mca-jurisdiction","tag-section-16-companies-act-2013","tag-trade-mark-and-company-name-conflict","tag-trade-mark-proprietor-rights"],"yoast_head":"\nCorporate Name vs Trade Mark Conflicts under Section 16 Companies Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Analysis of corporate name and trade mark conflicts under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, covering limitation, jurisdiction, and case law.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Name Clashes: Resolving Conflicts between Corporate Identities and Trade Marks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Analysis of corporate name and trade mark conflicts under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, covering limitation, jurisdiction, and case law.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-21T06:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Name Clashes: Resolving Conflicts between Corporate Identities and Trade Marks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/\",\"name\":\"Corporate Name vs Trade Mark Conflicts under Section 16 Companies Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-21T06:30:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Analysis of corporate name and trade mark conflicts under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, covering limitation, jurisdiction, and case law.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Corporate Name and Trade Mark Conflicts\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Name Clashes: Resolving Conflicts between Corporate Identities and Trade Marks\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Corporate Name vs Trade Mark Conflicts under Section 16 Companies Act | SCC Times","description":"Analysis of corporate name and trade mark conflicts under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, covering limitation, jurisdiction, and case law.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Name Clashes: Resolving Conflicts between Corporate Identities and Trade Marks","og_description":"Analysis of corporate name and trade mark conflicts under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, covering limitation, jurisdiction, and case law.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-21T06:30:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Name Clashes: Resolving Conflicts between Corporate Identities and Trade Marks","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/","name":"Corporate Name vs Trade Mark Conflicts under Section 16 Companies Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-21T06:30:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Analysis of corporate name and trade mark conflicts under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, covering limitation, jurisdiction, and case law.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Corporate Name and Trade Mark Conflicts"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/corporate-name-trademark-conflicts-section-16-companies-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Name Clashes: Resolving Conflicts between Corporate Identities and Trade Marks"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Corporate-Name-and-Trade-Mark-Conflicts.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":248620,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/24\/trade-mark\/","url_meta":{"origin":373344,"position":0},"title":"[Name-Logo Dispute] Telangana HC | \u2018GSK\u2019 being widely known mark: GSK Life Sciences (P) Ltd. ordered to suitably delete word \u2018GSK\u2019; No violation of S. 35, TM Act found","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 24, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Telangana High Court: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J., addressed a matter wherein the name and logo of a company were in dispute. Instant petition was filed to seek a writ of mandamus. Petitioner\u2019s contention was that it is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent 3 approached the 2nd\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":179424,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/02\/financial-statements-commenced-1-4-2014-governed-companies-act-1956-commencing-1-4-2014-governed-new-act-2013\/","url_meta":{"origin":373344,"position":1},"title":"Financial Statements that commenced before 1-4-2014, to be governed by \u2018Companies Act, 1956\u2019 and those commencing after 1-4-2014 to be governed by \u2018New Act of 2013\u2019","author":"Saba","date":"January 2, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Tribunal: A Bench comprising of Ashok Kumar Mishra, Technical Member and Ratakonda Murli, Judicial Member, while addressing an application filed under Section 441 of The Companies Act, 2013 (New Act), corresponding to Section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956 (Old Act), held that the compounding fees be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/NCLT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239110,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/16\/companies-amendment-act-2020-a-step-in-the-right-direction\/","url_meta":{"origin":373344,"position":2},"title":"Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020: A step in the right direction?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 16, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ananya Raghavendra\u2020and Eshvar Girish\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/compines-act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/compines-act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/compines-act.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/compines-act.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/compines-act.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239466,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/21\/winding-up-v-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016\/","url_meta":{"origin":373344,"position":3},"title":"Winding Up v. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 21, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Amir Arsiwala* & Ishan J Ravindranath**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/company-law.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/company-law.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/company-law.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/company-law.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/company-law.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":50541,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/04\/national-company-law-tribunal-constituted-new-perspectives-for-dispute-resolution\/","url_meta":{"origin":373344,"position":4},"title":"National Company Law Tribunal Constituted \u2013 New Perspectives for Dispute Resolution","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 4, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) vide a notification dated 1 June 2016 has constituted the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and its appellate authority, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) with effect from such date. The principal bench of the NCLT is to be located at New Delhi,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/DSC_4762-e1474523869607.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293173,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/27\/restriction-on-layering-of-companies-should-we-go-back-to-the-drawing-board\/","url_meta":{"origin":373344,"position":5},"title":"Restriction on Layering of Companies: Should We Go Back to the Drawing Board?","author":"Editor","date":"May 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Prerana Priyanshu\u2020 and Jishan Dediwal\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"layering of companies","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/layering-of-companies.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/layering-of-companies.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/layering-of-companies.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/layering-of-companies.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373344","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=373344"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373344\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":373348,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373344\/revisions\/373348"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/373345"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=373344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=373344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=373344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}