Decision

Decision on Amazon Courier Services Limited

Published 11 March 2025

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5008

For a change of company name of registration No. 15213975

Decision

The company name AMAZON COURIER SERVICES LIMITED has been registered since 16 October 2023 under number 15213975.

By an application filed on 7 August 2024, AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act).

A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 25 September 2024, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” service and also by standard mail. On 25 September 2024, the Tribunal wrote to Che Deal to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Che Deal in relation to this request.

On 24 October 2024, the respondent filed form CNA2 “Notice of defence”. On 13 December 2024, having reviewed the respondent’s Form CNA2, the Tribunal contacted the respondent by email to request the filing of an amended form CNA2 within 7 days of the date of the email. No reply was received. On 24 December 2024, the Tribunal again contacted the respondent by email to request the filing of an amended form CNA2 within 7 days of the date of the email. No reply was received.

On 14 January 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties regarding the respondent’s defence and advised that it was the adjudicator’s preliminary view that the defence be struck out due to no response having been received to the Tribunal’s emails dated 13 December 2024 and 24 December 2024. The parties were granted a period of 7 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. The parties were also advised that in the absence of a request for a hearing, the consequences of striking out the defence may be that the application succeeds and the company name is changed.

On 7 January 2025, Companies House register showed a First Gazette notice for compulsory strike off relating to company number 15213975. On 16 January 2025, Che Deal was joined as a co-respondent and the parties were granted a period of 14 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. No request for a hearing was made in connection with the applicant’s request that Che Deal be joined to the proceedings.

On 30 January 2025, the respondent filed form CNA4 “Request for a hearing” which set out grounds for a defence of its company name. A hearing was subsequently arranged to take place on 25 February 2025. On 25 February 2025, the respondent’s director Che Deal, contacted the Tribunal by email to notify that he intended to change the company name and that further proceedings would not be required. On 25 February 2025, the Tribunal contacted the parties by email to advise that the adjudicator proposed to vacate the Hearing scheduled for later that day and would be in touch with a name change order in the very near future. In response, the applicant, in its email the same day, confirmed its agreement to the hearing being vacated and advised that if the respondent company name is changed to a new name, that does not include “AMAZON”, either by the respondent or by the Tribunal, the Applicant would consider the matter closed.

The primary respondent did not file an Amended Form CNA2 “Notice of defence” within the period specified by the adjudicator sufficient to meet the requirements of rule 3(5) which states:

In its counter-statement the primary respondent shall-

(a) include an address for service in the United Kingdom;

(b) include a concise statement of the grounds on which it relies;

(c) state which of the allegations in the statement of grounds of the applicant it admits and which it denies; and

(d) state which of the allegations it is unable to admit or deny, but which it requires the applicant to prove.

 Rule 3(4) states

The primary respondent, before the end of that period, shall file a counter-statement on the appropriate form, otherwise the adjudicator may treat it as not opposing the application and may make an order under section 73(1).

Under the provisions of this rule, the adjudicator may exercise discretion so as to treat the respondent as opposing the application. In this case I can see no reason to exercise such discretion and, therefore, decline to do so.

As the primary respondent has not responded to the allegations made, and has by way of its email of 25 February 2025 withdrawn its opposition to the application, it is treated as not opposing the application. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act I make the following order:

(a) AMAZON COURIER SERVICES LIMITED shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name; ^{[footnote 1]}

(b) AMAZON COURIER SERVICES LIMITED and Che Deal each shall:

(i) take such steps as are within their power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change;

(ii) not cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with a name that is an offending name.

In accordance with s.73(3) of the Act, this order may be enforced in the same way as an order of the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, I will determine a new company name as per section 73(4) of the Act and will give notice of that change under section 73(5) of the Act.

All respondents, including individual co-respondents, have a legal duty under Section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 2006 not to cause or permit any steps to be taken calculated to result in another company being registered with an offending name; this includes the current company. Non-compliance may result in an action being brought for contempt of court and may result in a custodial sentence.

AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order AMAZON COURIER SERVICES LIMITED and Che Deal, being jointly and severally liable, to pay AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. costs on the following basis:

Fee for application: £400
Statement of case: £400
Skeleton arguments already prepared for the hearing scheduled on 25 February 2025: £100

Total: £900

This sum is to be paid within seven days of the expiry of the appeal period or within seven days of the final determination of this case if any appeal against this decision is unsuccessful.

Any notice of appeal against this decision to order a change of name must be given within one month of the date of this order. Appeal is to the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Court of Session in Scotland.

The company adjudicator must be advised if an appeal is lodged, so that implementation of the order is suspended.

Dated 6 March 2025

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator

1. An “offending name” means a name that, by reason of its similarity to the name associated with the applicant in which he claims goodwill, would be likely to be the subject of a direction under section 67 (power of Secretary of State to direct change of name), or to give rise to a further application under section 69. ↩