Ceylon Insurance Co., Ltd. V. United Ceylon Insurance Co., Ltd.,

1947 Present; Howard C.J. and Jayetileke J.

CEYLON INSURANCE CO., LTD., Appellant, and
UNITED CEYLON INSURANCE CO. LTD., Respondent.

S. C 221-D. C, Colombo, 128,

Companies Ordinance, No. 51 of 1938 -Registration of Names-Ceylon Insurance Company-United Ceylon Insurance Company-Calculated to deceive-Injunction-Section 18 (1) (a).

Plaintiff, the Ceylon Insurance Company, brought an action .to restrain the defendant from using the name " United Ceylon Insurance Company " on the ground that it so nearly resembled the name of the plaintiff as to be calculated to deceive.

Held, that the plaintiff had no exclusive right to the use of the word " Insurance" which was merely descriptive of the business carried on by tooth parties and that the addition of the word " United '* sufficiently distinguished the defendant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge, Colombo.

H, V. Perera, K.C. (with him E. B. Wikramanayake) for the plaintiff, appellant.-The plaintiff company carries on business in motor, fire, fidelity and life insurance and was registered as the Ceylon Insurance Company on April 3, 1939. The defendant company carries on business in life insurance and was registered on May 24, 1944, as the United Ceylon Insurance Company. This is an action by the plaintiff company to restrain the defendant company from using the name, style, and title of " United Ceylon Insurance Company."

Under section 18 (1) (a) of the Companies Ordinance, No. 51 of .1938, no company shall be registered by a name which (a) is identical with that by which a company in existence is registered or (b) so nearly resembles that name as to be calculated to deceive. The name is not identical in this case. But there can be no doubt that it nearly so resembles the name of the plaintiff company as to be calculated to deceive. It is in evidence that letters intended for one company have been delivered to the other.

In fact the name is identical but for the addition of the word "United ". The word " United " has no special significance at all. The public may well believe that the new company is actually the old company registered in 1939. The question is not whether the plaintiff company has the right to the monopoly of the use of words such as "Ceylon''' and "Insurance" but whether the name used by the defendant company so nearly resembles the name used by the plaintiff company as to be calculated to deceive. When one considers the class of people who have become interested in insurance business during recent years there can be no doubt that a good many persons interested may well mistake one company for the other, or may believe it is one company. This fact is obvious without reference to any authorities at all. But there is ample

authority to support the position that the plaintiffs is entitled to the relief he claims. See, for example, Ouvah Ceylon Estates,  Limited v. Uva Ceylon Rubber Estates, Limited 1 Hendriks v. Montague 2.

N. E. Weerasooria, K.C. (with him N. K. Choksy, K.C., and B. D. Gandevia), for the defendant, respondent.--The fact that some letters were misdirected was due to the mistake of the postal authorities. There is no evidence of any actual or possible deception, The mere fact of the liability of misdirection of correspondence does not in itself show an intention to divert business or any probability that business will be diverted. See Meikle v. Williamson 3 .

The bases cited on behalf of the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. -The plaintiff carries on various types of insurance business. The defendant carries on only life insurance business. So that it cannot be said that they both carried on identical business. The field of operation is wide in the present case but was limited in those cases and the addition of the word " United " is sufficient to distinguish the defendant company from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document