The main legal point established in the judgment is that the use of a similar name and trademark causing deception and passing off, infringing on prior rights, can lead to a directive for name change under the Companies Act and Trade Marks Act.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 3.2.2015 (Annex P11) passed by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Noida, whereby the petitioner-Company has been directed to change the name and style of company other than using the prefix "Lehra", with a direction to make the change within three months from the date of issue of the order.

2. The name of the petitioner-Company is M/s Lehra Bio Fuel Technology Private Limited (for short, 'BF'), while respondent No.2 is M/s Lehra Fuel-Tech Private Limited (for short, 'FT'). They both are engaged in the business of manufacturing of briquettes. "Lehra" is a geographical area which comes from village Lehra in Punjab.

3. Ft started its business of making briquettes in village 'Lehra' in the year 1995. It was a partnership concern and started its business of manufacturing and marketing of Fully Automatic Fuel Briquetting Machines, Equipments and Biomass Fuel Briquettes. They inter alia make briquettes. The products are sold in different States of India and outside India under the trademark "Lehra". It is registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Company holds 28 such trade marks for different products under the same trade mark "Lehra". The Company has acquired goodwill during the course of business over a long period of time in the local and other markets. The promoters, who are natives of village "Lehra" where the manufacturing unit is located, started as partnership firm in the year 2004 under the name and style 'Lehra Agro Fuel Industries'. FT was registered as a company in the year 2012 and a valid registration certificate was issued.

4. Bf challenged the trademarks of FT with the prefix "Lehra", before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, somewhere in the year 2012. FT filed an application under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), before the Regional Director (NR), Delhi-respondent No.1, seeking rectification of the name of BF. FT was engaged in business as an incorporated company on 23.1.1995, while the petitioner-BF was incorporated on 5.11.2012. The respondent No.2-FT, in its application under Section 22 of the Act pleaded that they never gave permission to anyone to use the name or to apply for incorporation with that name. They claimed that approval of registration of company with the name "Lehra Bio Fuel Technology Private Limited" is against Section 20 of the Act and the Companies (Name Availability) Rules, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The registered offices and factories of both the petitioner and respondent No.2-FT are 5 kms from each other and are engaged in similar line of business.

5. Respondent No.2-FT pleaded before the Regional Director (NR)-respondent No.1 in its rectification application that the promoters of the petitioner-Company had intentionally floated company similar to the applicant in name and business to usurp the business of the company. FT had a turnover of Rs.16.28 crores as on 31.03.2012. The petitioner had also made a website at the address www.lehraagrofuel.net, which is similar to the respondent-FTs website name i.e. www.lehrafuel.com.

6. Applicant/Respondent-Ft also alleged that the logo used by the petitioner-BF is similar to their logo by the name of "Lehra". The respondent-FT submits that this shows the intention of the petitioner to use applicant's name, brand name as well as logo as a means of deception and passing off the trade name to cause loss of business to FT. Indisputably, they are both engaged in the same business of manufacturing and supply of fully automatic fuel briquetting machines etc. FT issued a cease and desist notice on the petitioner BF to stop using the name and trade mark of the respondent but the petitioner failed to comply with the notice and did not refrain from using the trade mark and to delete the word "Lehra" from its name. When they refused to act, the respondent-Company preferred the app