Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1824
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ajay Kumar Mittal, Manjari Nehru Kaul, JJ.
M/s Mind Tree Eduvation Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mindtree Limited And Others - Respondent
LPA No. 275 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-01-2019
Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advcoate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate for Respondent No.l. Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent
The judgment established the significance of preventing deceptive similarity in corporate names and upheld the application of Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, to address such issues.
Headnote:
Trademark - Corporate Name - Companies Act, 1956, Section 22
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-company, engaged in education, contested the similarity of its name 'Mind Tree Eduvation Private Limited' with the respondent-company 'Mindtree Limited', an IT consulting company. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the judgments cited by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's name was similar to the respondent's trademark and corporate name, causing confusion and deception. It upheld the order directing the appellant to rectify its name by dropping 'Mind Tree'.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's name resembled the respondent's trademark or corporate name, leading to confusion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, to determine the similarity of the names and considered the judgments cited by both parties to establish the deceptive resemblance and potential infringement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order to rectify the appellant's name and emphasizing the importance of preventing deceptive similarity in corporate names.
JUDGMENT
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - In this intra Court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the appellant-Company assails the order dated 22.12.2014 vide which the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 28.05.2013, Annexure P.8 passed by Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs-respondent No. 2 rejecting the application filed by respondent No.l under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, "the Companies Act") and directed the appellant to rectify the name of the company by dropping the name "Mindtree" and also imposed costs in the amount of ?25,000/-.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by respondent No.2.
3. The controversy that needs to be addressed is whether the corporate name of the respondent-company i.e. Mindtree Limited is similar to or nearly resembles the appellant's trademark or its corporate name so as to deceive or cause confusion in the mind of a user.
4. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for deciding the controversy are that the appellant-company is engaged in imparting education since the year 2006. It has been running three schools in three different cities and is not engaged in any other activity. It was incorporated and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Chandigarh on 21.07.2009 and had filed an application for registration of the trademark "Mindtree Eduvation Private Limited" with the Trade Mark Authorities on 16.02.2016. The respondent-company is a mid-sized International Information Technology Consulting and Implementation Company, which started its operations in the year 1999 with headquarters at Warren, New Jersey. It is engaged in providing service relating to Information Technology, Independent Testing, Infrastructure Management and Technical Support, Knowledge Services and Product Engineering and next in Mobility. In the year 2008, respondent-company changed its name from Mindtree Consulting Limited to Mindtree Limited. On 23.11.2010, respondent-company filed an application under Section 22 of the Companies Act before respondent No.2 for rectification of the name of the appellant, on the ground that the name of the appellant resembled the name of the respondent-company and had an identical registered trade mark. After issuing notice to the appellant-Company and providing an opportunity of hearing to both the companies and considering the various documents produced by them, respondent No.2 vide order dated 28.05.2013 rejected the said application while holding that the trademark of the appellant-company i.e. "Mind Tree" could not be considered as identical or too nearly resemblingthe trademark of the Applicant-company as it contained one additional different word i.e. "Eduvation".
5. The respondent-company challenged the aforesaid order passed by respondent No.2 by filing CWP No. 17150 of 2013, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22.12.2014.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the said order by submitting that the appellant-company was involved in imparting education since 2006 and the word "Mind Tree" symbolized growth of brain. They were running three schools in three different cities and is not engaged in any other activity other than providing education. He further submitted that besides there being a phonetic difference between term "Mind Tree" as used by it and term "Mindtree" as used by respondent No.l, there was also a difference in the way both the appellant and respondent No.l had been writing "Mind Tree". As per the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was registered as "MIND TREE EDUVATION PRIVATE LIMITED" whereas respondent No.l was registered as "MINDTREE LIMITED". Since both the appellant and respondent No.l were dealing in different fields, they had no concern with the business of each other and moreover, there was no resemblance whatsoever betwe
