$~24

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5323/2013
APAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Ankur S. Kulkarni and Ms Swheta
S. Parihar, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr
Shubham Pundhir, Advocate for R-1,
2 & 3.
Dr Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for R-
4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 15.02.2018
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an
order dated 12.04.2013 (hereafter „the impugned order‟) passed by
respondent no.2 (Central Government), whereby the petitioner‟s application
for rectification of the name of respondent no.4 company under Section 22
of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter „the Act‟) was rejected.

2. The petitioner had changed its corporate name from „Power Cables
Private Limited‟ to „APAR Private Limited‟ on 30.09.1974. The petitioner
claims that the petitioner, as well as its group companies, are proprietors of
various trademarks, which include the word „APAR‟. The petitioner is also
the proprietor of two labels, which include the words „APAR Private
Limited‟.

3. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved as respondent no.3 (ROC) has

W.P.(C) 5323/2013 Page 1 of 5

registered respondent no. 4 company under the corporate name „APAAR
Infratech Private Limited‟.

4. The petitioner claims that the corporate name of respondent no.4 too
nearly resembles the name of the petitioner company and its trademarks and,
therefore, the name of respondent no.4 company is liable to be rectified.

5. The petitioner claims that although respondent no.4 was incorporated

on 15.05.2008, the petitioner came across the name of respondent no.4
company in November 2009. Thereafter, on 20.08.2010, the petitioner filed
a petition with the Central Government (Regional Director Ministry of
Corporate Affairs) under Section 22 of the Act seeking rectification of
respondent no.4‟s name.

6. The petitioner claims that its group companies were using the
trademark „APAR‟ since 1973. The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the
business of manufacturing and supply of electric conductors for power
transmission lines, transformer oil, industrial oils automotive and specialty
oils and cables. The petitioner claims to be one of the largest manufacturers
and exporters of electric conductors in Asia. The petitioner contended that
its group includes seven other companies that use the name „APAR‟ as a
part of their corporate name.

7. The Central Government did not accept the petitioner‟s claim that the
corporate name of respondent no.4 was identical with or too nearly
resembled the petitioner‟s trademark and, accordingly, rejected the
petitioner‟s petition filed under Section 22 of the Act.

8. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to Section 22 of the Act

which is set out below:-

W.P.(C) 5323/2013 Page 2 of 5

 “22. RECTIFICATION OF NAME OF COMPANY
(1) If, through inadvertence or otherwise, a company on its
first registration or on its registration by a new name, is
registered by a name which-
(i) in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with,
or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company in
existence has been previously registered, whether under this
Act or any previous companies law, the firstmentioned
company, or
(ii) on an application by a registered proprietor of a trade
mark, is in the opinion of the Central Government identical
with, or too nearly resembles, a registered trade mark of such
proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such company,
(a) may, by ordinary resolution and with the previous approval
of the Central Government signified in writing, change its
name or new name ; and
(b) shall, if the Central Government so directs within twelve
months of its first registration or registration by its new name,
as the case may be, or within twelve months of the
commencement of this Act, whichever is later, by ordinary
resolution and with the previous approval of the Central
Government signified in writing, change its name or new name
within a period of three months from the date of the direction
or such longer period as the Central Government may think fit
to allow.
Provided that no application under clause (ii) made by a
registered proprietor of a trade mark after five years of coming
to notice of registration of the company shall be considered by
the Central Government.
(2) If a company makes default in complying with any
direction given under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the
company, and every officer who is in default, shall be
punishable with fine which may extend to 3 [one thousand]
rupees for every day during which the default continues.”

9. It is apparent from the above that a company would be called upon to

W.P.(C) 5323/2013 Page 3 of 5

change its corporate name if it is „identical with or too nearly resembles‟ the
name of the existing company or a registered trademark.

10. In the present case, it is difficult to accept that the name of respondent
no.4 is identical with or too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner.
Whereas the name of the petitioner is „APAR Industries Limited‟, the name
of respondent no.4 is „APAAR Infratech Private Limited‟. The first word of
the corporate names of the petitioner and respondent no.4 are phonetically
similar; but they are not spelled in the same manner. More importantly, the
corporate names must be read as a whole and need not be dissected. The
word „APAR‟ is not a unique coined word; it is commonly used in hindi
language and it means, unbounded, inestimable, immeasurable and vast.
Inclusion of a word of common language in a corporate name would not
grant any exclusive right to the petitioner so as to prevent any other person
from using such words as a part of their corporate name.

11. Further, respondent no.4 had also produced a list of 61 companies, the
names of which include the word „APAR‟. It is also pointed out that there
are 25 other companies whose names include the word „APAAR‟. In this
view, it would not be apposite to determine whether the names of respondent
no.4 is similar to the petitioner only on the basis that one word in the
corporate name - APAAR - is phonetically similar to a word, which forms a
part of the petitioner‟s corporate name.

12. As stated above, the name of respondent no.4 company must be read
as a whole and it is at once clear that „APAAR Infratech Private Limited‟
does not too nearly resemble „APAR Industries Private Limited‟.

13. The contention, that respondent no. 4‟s corporate name too nearly

W.P.(C) 5323/2013 Page 4 of 5

resembles, the petitioner‟s trademark, is also unpersuasive.

14. The petitioner has enclosed a tabular statement along with its petition
indicating the trademarks registered in its favour or in favour of its group
companies. The examination of the said statement indicates that although,
the petitioner is a registered proprietor of trademarks which include the word
„APAR‟, the petitioner is not the registered owner of the word mark „APAR‟
or „APAAR‟.

15. The petitioner also owns two labels which are as under:-

SR. TRADEMARK TRADEMARK JOURNAL STATUS

NO. NO./CLASS
01 338274B/9 Journal No. REGISTERED
1074S / & RENEWED
APAR Page No. 34 TILL
PVT. LTD.
10/07/2018

02 338275/5 Journal No. REGISTERED

APAR 1074S / & RENEWED
PVT. LTD.
Page No. 22 TILL
10/07/2018

16. Respondent no.4‟s name also cannot be stated to be identical with or

similar to the aforesaid registered trademarks.

17. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned
order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
RK

W.P.(C) 5323/2013 Page 5 of 5