No Confusion Test for Company Name Clashing With Registered Trade Mark: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court refused to stay a Regional Director’s order directing Rajput Jewellers Private Limited to change its name, noting that Section 16(1)(b) does not require proof of likely confusion.

Rectification of a company name under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 turns on whether the name is identical with or too nearly resembles a registered trade mark, and does not require a finding of likely deception or confusion, the Delhi High Court has observed while refusing interim relief [Rajput Jewellers Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr., 2026-juristway.com-3483-HC(Delhi)-CORP].

Justice Tejas Karia declined to stay an order of 2 Sep 2026 passed by the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which held that the petitioner’s corporate name was identical with or too nearly resembled the trade mark of the second respondent.

The petitioner was incorporated as Rajput Jewellers Private Limited on 23 May 2020. It said that before incorporation the father of its present directors had run a proprietorship under the name “Rajput Jewellers” since 1985. The second respondent claimed use of “Rajput Jewellers” since 1 Jan 1998 and had obtained a trade mark registration. The petitioner relied on approval of its name by the Central Registration Centre, its prior use and pending rectification proceedings against the mark.

The Court noted that the Regional Director’s order dealt with these contentions, gave reasons for rejecting them, and clarified that it was not a ruling on infringement or passing off. The petitioner had not filed its reply to the application under Section 16(1)(b), so the Court could not examine its full stand before the Regional Director or find any prima facie illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner cited decisions including S. Syed Mohideen, J.R. Kapoor and Nandhini Deluxe. The Court said these concerned trade mark registration, prior-user rights and likelihood of confusion between marks. Section 16(1)(b) is different, and, as held in Topland Engines Private Limited, it does not call for a likelihood-of-confusion inquiry.

Finding no prima facie case, the Court refused to stay the order. Notice was issued on the writ petition, the respondents were given four weeks to reply, and the matter is listed on 23 Feb 2027.

2026-juristway.com-3483-HC(Delhi)-CORP