0370 270 6000

Company Names Tribunal

9 December 2008

You are the owner of a registered trade mark and discover that your registered trade mark is being used as part of a third partys registered company name. What can you do?

Previously, you would have had to rely on your rights of passing off and trade mark infringement. However since 1 October 2008, and the implementation of a new Company Names Tribunal to deal with complaints made under Section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006, you may have another remedy.

The new procedure under the Act allows challenges to opportunistic company name registrations, ie, registered company names which are similar to existing brand names and are thought to have been registered in order to capitalise on the goodwill already built up in that name.

How does it work?

Under the Act the right to object to a companys registered name is available where the person bringing the action (the applicant) can establish the following grounds:

  • The company name is the same as a name in respect of which the applicant has goodwill; or
  • The company name is sufficiently similar to a name owned by the applicant that its use by the person applying to register it in the UK would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant

Where a complaint is brought, the holder of the company registration has defences available to it. These are as follows:

  • The name was registered before the applicant commenced the activities on which it relies to show it has goodwill in the relevant name
  • The company is operating under the name, or is proposing to do so, and has incurred substantial start up costs in preparation of trading, or was formally operating and the company is now dormant
  • The company was registered in the ordinary course of business and the company name is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business
  • The name was adopted in good faith by the company
  • The interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent

The first three defences however can be undermined if the applicant can show that the main aim of the company name registration was to block the applicant from registering the name or to obtain large sums of money in return for the transfer of the relevant registered name.

In this regard the new procedure is similar to the measures in place to combat cyber squatting, where the proof of a bad faith or opportunistic registration will lead to the transfer of the relevant domain name to the rights holder. However, what will be considered opportunistic has not been defined by the legislation and what will constitute bad faith remains to be decided on by the Tribunal.

Where the applicant is successful in bringing its complaint the Tribunal has the power to order the company name to be changed by a specific deadline.

There is no time limit fixed to bring a claim but clearly if an applicant is to avoid the defence that the company is operating under the name, and has incurred substantial start up costs, and where the applicant does not have strong evidence to rely on to disprove that the name was adopted in good faith by the company, then the sooner the application is made the better.

Bringing a complaint to the Tribunal attracts a £400 initial application fee, although there are likely to be other associated costs such as legal advice and hearing costs (a hearing will not always be required and complaints can also be dealt with by way of written statements alone).

No cases have yet been decided by the Tribunal, although some rights holders (including Coca Cola) have already brought complaints under the new procedure, and so it remains to be seen how effective or utilised it will be. However, given the costs and uncertainty associated with litigation, it is anticipated that there may be wide take up of this cheaper remedy and that such applications may yet become as common place as those being made under the Nominet and ICANN procedures in respect of cyber squatting.

Focus on...

Published articles

Court of Appeal makes plea for legally enforceable arbitration for FRAND disputes

In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.

View

Published articles

Bruce Willis, AI and the Problem With Deepfakes

A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.

View

Blogs

IR35 rules to be scrapped from April 2023

The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.

View

Press releases

Browne Jacobson announces 10 to its 2022 trainee solicitor scheme

Browne Jacobson has welcomed 10 future lawyers to its trainee scheme for 2022 – 2024 as it continues to grow its business.
The new recruits have joined 36 trainees currently at the firm, bringing the total number of trainee solicitors at Browne Jacobson to 46 – a record number for the firm.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Declan Cushley

Declan Cushley

Partner and Head of IP and Commercial Group

View profile

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up