The Delhi High Court has refused to stay an order directing Rajput Jewellers Private Limited to change its corporate name, observing that the company had failed to establish a prima facie case for suspending the direction while its challenge is pending.
Justice Tejas Karia was hearing the company's challenge to an order dated September 2, 2026, passed by the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, directing it to change its corporate name under the Companies Act, 2013.
The dispute concerns the use of the name 'Rajput Jewellers'. The company was incorporated on May 23, 2020, while Late Ramesh Rajput, father of its present directors, had operated a proprietorship under the same name since 1985.
The trademark holder claims use of the mark “Rajput Jewellers” since January 1998. It had obtained registration in 2004, which expired in April 2014. It subsequently filed a renewal application in February 2020, and registration was granted in December 2023 with effect from February 22, 2020.
The petitioner argued that the respondent had no subsisting registration when the company was incorporated and that the application seeking a change of its corporate name was time-barred.
It also contended that “Rajput” is a common surname and that it was entitled to use the name under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act. It further pointed out that proceedings challenging the respondent's trademark registration were pending before the Trade Marks Registry.
The respondent, however, submitted that its registration had effect from February 2020, before the petitioner company's incorporation. It argued that the petitioner's corporate name incorporated its registered mark in its entirety, with the words “Private Limited” merely indicating the company's corporate status.
The High Court observed that proceedings under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act are confined to determining whether a company's name is identical with or too nearly resembles an existing registered trademark. Such proceedings do not require a determination of likelihood of deception or confusion.
It also noted that the subsequent registration was granted with effect from February 22, 2020, preceding the petitioner's incorporation. The Court further observed that the Regional Director had considered the petitioner's objections, including its reliance on Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act and the pending rectification proceedings.
The court noted that the petitioner had not placed on record its reply filed before the Regional Director, making it difficult to examine its stand in those proceedings in its entirety.
Finding no prima facie illegality, perversity, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error warranting interference, the Court refused to stay the September 2 order.
The High Court directed the respondents to file their replies within four weeks and listed the matter on February 23, 2027.
For Rajput Jewellers: Advocates Sarthak Katyal and Prince Wadhwa
For Respondents: CGSC Bhagvan Swarup Shukla with Advocates Harshvardhan Gupta, Sunita Shukla, Priya Dwivedi and Anupam Pandey for R-1; Advocates Sanyam Goel and Mohtashim Kibriya for R-2