Order :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

Heard Mr.P.Kabilan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Dr.M.Sathya Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following prayer:-

To quash the impugned order dated 07.1.2022 passed by the First Respondent in application C.A.05/Sec16/RD(SR)/2020-21 as arbitrary and consequently direct the First Respondent to rectify its Company name.

3. The facts of the case, in brief are as follows:-

i) The petitioner-Company was incorporated in the year 1996 under the name and style M/s. Indian Holistic Health Centre Private Limited; that since 1998, the petitioner-Company has been offering holistic and integrative medicine; that thereafter, in the year 2000, the petitioner coined the word, ‘SOUKYA’ and got registered the name ‘Soukya’ as Trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for their Company,

ii) The petitioner came to know that the second respondent-Company is using the tradename of the petitioner-Company. Therefore, the petitioner- Company filed an Application before the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order dated 07.01.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s application. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been diligently and meticulously protecting the value of the trademark and tradename ‘SOUKYA’; that however, the petitioner was contacted by several entitles enquiring as to whether the coconut based products with the branding and tradename ‘SOWKEA’ is from the petitioner- Company or from M/s.SOWKEA Agro and Retail Concepts Pvt. Ltd., viz., the second respondent and whether the second respondent-Company was part of the Petitioner-Company; that upon enquiry, the petitioner-Company came to know that the second respondent-Company was using the tradename of the petitioner-Company trademark by merely altering the spelling ‘SOUKYA’ to ‘SOWKEA’ and has been selling their products on the strength of NOC issued by a Proprietary Firm, M/s.Vignesh Polymers, which had registered the tradename of the petitioner-Company, hence, the petitioner- Company issued a communication to the said M/s.Vignesh Polymers requesting them to refrain from using the trademark ‘SOWKEA’; that M/s.Vignesh Polymers were issuing reply communications denying the request of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner-Company filed an Application under Section 16 of the Companies Act 2013 before the first respondent for issuance of a direction to the second respondent-Company to change their trade name, but, the first respondent, without appreciating the facts of the case in a proper perspective, rejected the petitioner-Company application by the impugned order.

4.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order by primarily contending that the petitioner-Company was incorporated in the year 1996 under the name and style M/s.Indian Holistic Health Centre Pvt. Ltd.; that thereafter, in the year 2008, name of the Company was changed as ‘SOUKYA Indian Holistic Health Centre Pvt. Ltd; that the petitioner, in order to protect its brand name and secure hard-earned goodwill and reputation, registered the name, ‘SOUKYA’ in the year 2000, whereas, the second respondent-Company was only registered in the year 2020 (i.e. on 05.06.2020); that even at the time of registration, no public advertisement was made calling for any objection by the Trademark Registry; that the trademark ‘SOWKEA’ has not been registered by the second respondent-Company, but was using the said tradename on the strength of the NOC issued by M/s.Vignesh Polymers, which was registered much before the second respondent-Company was incorporated,; that the true nature of business of the petitioner-Company and its prior adoption of the Company name and trademark ‘SOUKYA’ would clearly show the mala fide adoption of ‘