MINDTREE LIMITED AND ORS. Vs. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTHERN REGION, MINISTRY OF CORPORATION AFFAIRS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is the instance of the petitionerCompany described as petitioner No.1, along with the second petitioner challenging the order passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India declining to intercede on behalf of the petitioner which had applied for change of name of the second respondent Company called as "MindTree Eduvation Private Limited" as being an identical with or nearly resembling the registered trade mark of the 1st petitioner-Company called the MindTree Limited. The case was dismissed accepting the defence of the second respondent that the second respondent was engaged in the field of education and had its registered trade mark since 2006. The petitioner-Company had registered in 1999 and the trade mark had been registered as class 19, 9 & 16 (computer hardware printed matter etc.) on 24.02.1999. The impugned order held that the second respondent cannot be considered as identical or to nearly resembling with the trade mark of the applicant-Company MindTree because it contained one additional different word, namely, Eduvation.

(2.) The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the petitioner-Company is a mid-sized International Information Technology Consulting and Implementation Company. MindTree was started in 1999 and had headquarters at Warren New Jersey and had its offices in Bangalore (India) and three development centres in India and 15 offices in Asia, Europe and the United States. It would seen that the petitioner is ranked No.18 in Indian I.T. Companies and over all at 445 in Fortune India 500 list of 2011.

(3.) Section 22 contemplates a situation where a Company is registered by inadvertence with a name which in the opinion of the Central Government is identical with or nearly resembling the name of a Company which had been in existence previously. The rectification could come either suo motu, on the opinion of the Central Government or on an application by registered proprietor of a trade mark. All that would be necessary for application of Section 22 would be the first mentioned Company, namely, a Company which had registered a trade mark with a particular name could have a cause for an application to have the rectification directed to be done against another Company which is registered inadvertently without reference to the identity or its resemblance.