Delhi High Court Orders Refex Hotels to Change Name Over Similarity With Refex Industries

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on January 28, 2026, set aside a 2018 order of the Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which had declined to direct a name change on the ground that the two companies operated in different business sectors.

Disagreeing with the Regional Director's reasoning, the Court observed that “the dissimilarity in the businesses of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was not a relevant criterion for the Regional Director to consider for declining to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 16 of the Act of 2013.”

Refex Industries, incorporated in 2002, is engaged in the manufacture and refilling of refrigerant gases and has held a registered trademark for the word “REFEX” since 2007. Over the years, multiple group companies promoted by the same promoters have also used “REFEX” as the distinctive part of their corporate names.

Refex Hotels Private Limited was incorporated in Punjab in 2017. In April 2018, Refex Industries approached the Regional Director under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking rectification of the company's name on the ground that it was identical to its registered trademark and corporate name.

In August 2018, Regional Director rejected the application, holding that the two companies operated in distinct industries, i.e., refrigerant gases and hospitality, and that no confusion would arise.

Challenging this decision, Refex Industries approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that under company law, the relevant test is whether a name is identical with or too closely resembles the name of an existing company or a registered trademark and not whether the businesses are similar.

Opposing the challenge, Refex Hotels submitted that it operates in the hospitality sector, which falls under a different trademark class, and that there was no likelihood of confusion with Refex Industries' business. It was also argued that it had adopted the name in good faith.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that dissimilarity of business activities is not a relevant consideration under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Referring to its earlier rulings in CGMP Pharmaplan (P) Ltd. v. Regional Director Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Everstone Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. Everstone Ventures LLP and Mondelez Foods Private Limited v. The Regional Director (North) Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Others, the Court reiterated that there is no requirement for Regional Director to examine likelihood of confusion and that mere resemblance to an existing registered name is sufficient to warrant rectification.

The Court noted that “REFEX” is a prominent part of both company names. It held that Refex Hotels adopted the name long after Refex Industries and its group companies had established rights over the mark, rendering the later company's name “undesirable” under the Companies Act.

“The documents on record show that the Petitioner is the prior adopter of this coined word 'REFEX' and, therefore, Respondent No. 2 had no reasonable grounds for adopting this word as a part of its corporate name. The adoption of this name is undesirable within the scope of Section 4(2)(a) of the Act of 2013 as it is identical with the name of the Petitioner,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Regional Director's order and directed Refex Hotels Private Limited to change its name to one that does not include or resemble “REFEX” within four weeks. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs was also directed to issue appropriate instructions to ensure compliance.

For Petitioner: Advocates Rohan Rohtagi & Muthu Prabha

For Respondents: Senior Panel Counsel Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy with Advocates Usha Jamnal, Mohd. Junaid Mahmood & Prerna Pandita for UOI; Advocates Ubhai Bharti Gupta and Tapsi Shashikala for R-2