Brief Introductory Head-Note Summary and Factual Background
The case is about a company challenging a direction given by a government official (Regional Director of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs) ordering it to change its name because its name looks almost the same as an older company’s name. The company filing the case (the Petitioner) was incorporated in 2022. Another company with a similar name (Respondent No. 2) was first incorporated in 2008, and later changed its name in 2013 to include the word "SKAAD".
The person who became a director in the newcomer company had earlier worked as a director of the older company for more than 13 years until late 2021, and soon after leaving that company, he helped create the new one. Both companies operate in the same business field — insurance surveying and loss assessment — meaning they target the same industry, customers, and market.
After the newcomer company was registered, Respondent No. 2 approached the Regional Director and said: this new company’s name is almost the same as ours and can mislead people. The Regional Director agreed and issued an order under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 directing the Petitioner to change its name within three months by passing an ordinary resolution.
The Petitioner did not want to change its name and therefore filed a writ petition before the High Court, arguing that because Respondent No. 2’s trademark application on the word “SKAAD” had reportedly been abandoned or failed formalities, the Regional Director wrongly protected Respondent No.2’s “trademark rights” and went into trademark infringement issues, which he should not have done.
Procedural Details
The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the name-change direction given by the Regional Director. The petition was heard and decided orally on 19 November 2025. The Court also dealt with an interim relief application where the Petitioner asked for a stay on the impugned order. The Court refused to interfere in the merits and dismissed the case but extended the compliance period by one more month.
Core Dispute
The main dispute is whether the Regional Director acted beyond his legal power by touching trademark disputes, or whether he acted correctly within Section 16(1)(a) which allows the government to ask a company to correct its name if it is the same or confusingly similar to an already-existing company name.
Detailed Court Reasoning with Citations and Legal Discussion
The Court held that Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 gives the Central Government (and its delegate such as the Regional Director) a very wide power to direct a company to change its name if the name is:
identical to an older company name, or
too similar to make the public think both belong to the same source.
The Court explained that Section 16(1)(a) does not require proving trademark infringement. The only requirement is similarity with an older company name. It does not even need a detailed finding that confusion or deception is proven. Rather, even a mere resemblance is enough for the government to step in, because the law wants companies to have distinct identities to avoid administrative, public, financial, and legal confusion.
The Court referred in detail to the earlier judgment in cGMP Pharmaplan P. Ltd. v. Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr., decided by the same Court in 2010 under Section 22 of Companies Act, 1956 (which is legally the same as Section 16(1)(a) of the 2013 Act). That judgment said very clearly that the power of the RD is independent of trademark and passing-off disputes. The Court in that case had said:
There is no need for a trademark test,
There is no need to check actual deception, and
It is enough to look at whether two company names are “too alike when compared as a whole”.
The Petitioner had relied heavily on the Panchhi Petha Store judgment given in 2024. The Court clarified the difference. In Panchhi Petha Store v. Union of India, the RD’s order was set aside because the RD had wrongly examined trademark ownership and based his order on trademark rights. But in the present case, the RD’s order was not about trademark rights, it was only about similarity in company names. Therefore this case follows the reasoning of cGMP Pharmaplan and not Panchhi Petha Store.
The Court also saw that a real-world problem had already happened: an insurance company mistakenly deposited money into Respondent No.2's bank account, thinking it belonged to the Petitioner, because the names were almost the same. This, though not legally required to prove, showed how similar names can lead to real confusion, justifying the RD’s action.
The Court held that the names "SKA" and "SKAAD", followed by identical wording “Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Private Limited”, are substantially the same names when viewed together. Therefore the impugned order was correct and not unreasonable.
The Court finally held that under Article 226, it can interfere in government orders only if they are (a) illegal, or (b) totally unreasonable, or (c) make no legal sense. Since Section 16(1)(a) clearly covers this situation, the RD did not act illegally and therefore the High Court refused to interfere.
Decision
The Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the name-change direction but extended compliance by one more month.
Concluding Note
This ruling reinforces a very practical message: disputes over company names are decided under the Companies Act, not trademark law. Even if a trademark application fails or is abandoned, that does not stop the government from correcting confusingly similar names between companies if an older company already exists. The purpose of the law is not a battle over logos or brand ownership, but public clarity, market honesty, and corporate separateness.
Concluding Note
This ruling reinforces a very practical message: disputes over company names are decided under the Companies Act, not trademark law. Even if a trademark application fails or is abandoned, that does not stop the government from correcting confusingly similar names between companies if an older company already exists. The purpose of the law is not a battle over logos or brand ownership, but public clarity, market honesty, and corporate separateness.
Concluding Note
This ruling reinforces a very practical message: disputes over company names are governed by the Companies Act, not trademark law. Even if a trademark application fails or is abandoned, the Regional Director can still direct a name change when a new company’s name closely resembles the name of an older, existing company. The intent of Section 16(1)(a) is to maintain corporate distinctiveness for public clarity, administrative accuracy, and market honesty — not to determine trademark ownership or infringement.
The Court’s refusal to interfere under Article 226 emphasizes that writ jurisdiction is meant to correct clear illegality or extreme unreasonableness, not to substitute administrative judgement when statutory conditions are satisfied. The real-world financial mix-up between similarly named companies strengthened the practical logic behind the Regional Director’s decision, even though legally, mere similarity suffices for action under Section 16(1)(a).
This decision serves as useful reading for law students, junior lawyers, and the general public to understand that company identity enjoys independent statutory protection and does not depend on separate trademark rights being formally registered or successfully pursued. The law prioritizes uniqueness in names to prevent public and commercial confusion at its source itself.
Concluding Note
Recently, the High Court of Delhi delivered an important ruling explaining how the law handles disputes related to company names that are very similar to each other. The order emphasizes a very simple principle — when the government asks a company to change its name because it looks almost the same as an older existing company, the test comes from the Companies Act, 2013, not trademark law.
In this case, the Regional Director used Section 16(1)(a) to direct the Petitioner company (incorporated in 2022) to change its name because it is almost identical to an older company’s name (registered in 2008 and renamed in 2013). The Petitioner argued that the trademark application of the older company had failed, so the Regional Director should not have protected trademark rights. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that Section 16(1)(a) does not require trademark registration or infringement tests — only similarity between company names is enough for the government to act.
The Court relied heavily on the earlier decision in cGMP Pharmaplan P. Ltd. v. Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (2010), which held that the Regional Director’s power is wider and independent, requiring no proving of actual confusion. It also distinguished the 2024 ruling in Panchhi Petha Store v. Union of India, where interference was allowed because the Regional Director wrongly decided trademark ownership — something not done in the present case.
Most importantly, the Court refused to interfere under Article 226 because the Regional Director acted clearly within statutory limits, noting further that a real incident had already occurred where payments were wrongly forwarded to the similarly named company’s bank account, showing how harmful near-identical names can be.
This order is a reminder for everyone, especially young lawyers and students, that every law protects something different — trademark law protects brands, while the Companies Act protects the identity of companies so that the public always knows who is who.
Case Title: SKA Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director (Northern Region)
Order Date: 19.11.2025
Case Number: W.P.(C) 17574/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:???? (to be updated after official upload)
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Prateek Jalan
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles
“Distinct by Name, Distinct by Law — Understanding Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013”
“Where Similarity Alone Suffices — Judicial Review of Company Name Rectification Orders”
“Company Identity v. Trademark Confusion — A Practical Reading of SKA Insurance Surveyors Case”
“Why Company Names Must Never Overlap — Lessons from Delhi High Court’s Section 16 Interpretation”
“Corporate Name Rectification and Writ Jurisdiction — Keeping Legal Tests Simple for Public Use”
=====
On 19 November 2025, the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Justice Prateek Jalan, delivered an oral order in the case of SKA Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Director (Northern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr. The petition, registered as W.P.(C) 17574/2025, was filed to challenge a name-change direction issued by the Regional Director under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court upheld the government’s decision, observing that the law allows intervention when a newly registered company name is identical or too similar to an existing company name, irrespective of trademark claims. The ruling emphasized that the Regional Director does not need to determine trademark rights or prove actual deception—mere similarity of company names is sufficient. The writ petition was dismissed, though the time to comply with the name-change order was extended by one month.
The dispute stemmed from the Petitioner’s incorporation in 2022 under a name that was almost the same as an older company, “SKAAD Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.”, which was originally registered in 2008 and renamed in 2013. Notably, a director of the Petitioner had served as director in the older entity for over 13 years until December 2021, and soon after resigning, helped incorporate the new company. Both companies operate in the same line of business as insurance surveyors and loss assessors. A real financial mix-up had already occurred when payments due to the Petitioner were mistakenly deposited into Respondent No.2’s bank account because of the equally similar names—although the Court clarified that such actual confusion was not legally required to empower action under Section 16(1)(a).
Referring to the 2010 judgment in cGMP Pharmaplan P. Ltd. v. Regional Director, which interprets the earlier but legally similar 1956 provision, the Court held that the name comparison must be made as a whole and that the government’s power is wider than a Civil Court’s power in trademark or passing-off actions. The Court also distinguished the 2024 decision in Panchhi Petha Store v. Union of India, where interference was made because the RD had wrongly decided trademark ownership—something not done in the present matter. Here, the RD order was purely on company-name similarity, and therefore within jurisdiction.
The decision reiterates that protection of a company’s name-identity is governed independently by the Companies Act and does not depend on the success or failure of trademark registration. The law aims to keep corporate identities separate and easily distinguishable in public and official records.
Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
