COOLULU SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dtd. 30/3/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent/Regional Director, Corporate Affairs allowing the application filed by the 3rd respondent/Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited and restraining the petitioner from using the word "lulu" from the title of its name within three months from the date of the order.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:- The petitioner/Coolulu Sports and Entertainment Private Limited claims to have been incorporated under the Companies Act , 2013 ('the Act' for short) and is engaged in sports coaching, sporting events, adult fitness events etc. The petitioner claims to allow third-party merchants to sell sporting apparel, equipment and merchandise at the events organized by the petitioner. It is claimed that the petitioner is established with the aim of fostering athletic inclinations in both children and adults alike, to give sport enthusiasts an opportunity to compete and get recognized. The petitioner claims to have been incorporated on 13/4/2018 in the name and style of 'Coolulu'. It is claimed that prior to the petitioner getting incorporated the brand and logo with the stamp and all other things were checked and then the name was incorporated. The 3rd respondent/Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited is engaged in the establishment and operation of several commercial establishments such as malls and super-markets.

(3.) The 3rd respondent complained to the Competent Authority that the petitioner is using the name that is too near to the name of the 3rd respondent and on such complaint, a show cause notice comes to be issued to the petitioner under Sec. 16 of the Act by the 2nd respondent. The show cause notice emanates on account of an application filed before the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner claims to have filed its objections and later, on consideration of the material before it the 2nd respondent/Regional Director, passes an order under Sec. 16(1)(b) of the Act directing the petitioner that it should not use the word 'Lulu' in its name and further directs that the name of the Company should be changed within 3 months from the date of the order i.e., 30/3/2022. In the event the petitioner would not change, it was directed that necessary action under Rule 33A of the Companies (Incorporation) Fifth Amendment Rules, 2021 be immediately put into effect for changing the name. It is this order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.