Decision

Decision on Arm Tech Solutions Limited

Updated 30 June 2023

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4132

For a change of company name of registration No. 13447180

Decision

The company name ARM TECH SOLUTIONS LIMITED has been registered since 9 June 2021 under number 13447180.

By an application filed on 13 December 2022, ARM LIMITED 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 5 January 2023, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and also by standard mail. It was returned “addressee gone away”. On 5 January 2023, the Tribunal wrote to Vinay Kumar Reddy Madadi to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. The letters sent to Vinay Kumar Reddy Madadi by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and by standard mail were returned “addressee gone away”. No comments were received from Vinay Kumar Reddy Madadi in relation to this request. On 17 February 2023, Vinay Kumar Reddy Madadi was joined as a co-respondent. On 17 February 2023, the parties were advised that no defence had been received to the application and so the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed. 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.

On 22 February 2023, the co-respondent contacted the Tribunal by email and stated that the respondent had not received the Tribunal’s letters dated 5 January 2023. The co-respondent advised that they had received email correspondence from the applicant dated 3 August 2022, including a copy of the application form CNA1, and that no further communication had been made. The co-respondent also made further points regarding his company name. On 22 February 2023, the co-respondent sent a further email to the Tribunal responding to the applicant’s statements made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of it’s form CNA1. On 23 February 2023, the Tribunal notified the respondent that if it wished to file a defence it should do so using form CNA2, together with a form CNA5 to request a retrospective extension of time for filing the defence. The respondent was advised that should no defence and retrospective request for extension of time be filed by 3 March 2023, the application would be referred to the adjudicator to consider issuing an order to change the company name. No request for an extension of time in which to file a defence has been received.

The primary respondent did not file a defence on form CNA2 within the one month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3) and no extension of time request was received by 3 March 2023. 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, it is treated as not opposing the application. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act I make the following order:

(a) ARM TECH SOLUTIONS 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) ARM TECH SOLUTIONS LIMITED and Vinay Kumar Reddy Madadi 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.

ARM LIMITED, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order ARM TECH SOLUTIONS LIMITED and Vinay Kumar Reddy Madadi, being jointly and severally liable, to pay ARM LIMITED costs on the following basis:

Fee for application: £400
Statement of case: £400

Total: £800

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 4th April 2023

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. ↩