Decision

Decision on Burberry (UK) Holdings Group Limited

Updated 30 October 2020

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 2053

For a change of company name of registration No. 10245466

Decision

The company name BURBERRY (UK) HOLDINGS GROUP LIMITED has been registered since 22 June 2016 under number 10245466.

By an application filed on 5 July 2019, BURBERRY 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 17 July 2019, 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. On 17 July 2019, the Tribunal wrote to Mingtao Yu and UK Jiecheng Business Limited to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Mingtao Yu and UK Jiecheng Business Limited in relation to this request. On 25 November 2019, Mingtao Yu and UK Jiecheng Business Limited were joined as co-respondents. On 25 November 2019, 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. The letters sent to the primary respondent were returned “address incomplete”. No request for a hearing was made.

It was subsequently noted that the letters sent to the primary respondent dated 25 November 2019 had been addressed in error and as such, on 31 January 2020, the letters were re-issued and the primary respondent was given a further period of 14 days to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they wished. The letter sent by Royal Mail “Signed For” service was returned “RTS not known at this address”. No request for a hearing was made.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the two month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3). 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) BURBERRY (UK) HOLDINGS GROUP 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) BURBERRY (UK) HOLDINGS GROUP LIMITED, Mingtao Yu and UK Jiecheng Business Limited each shall:

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

(ii) not to 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.

BURBERRY LIMITED, having been successful, would normally be entitled to a contribution towards its costs. However, the applicant has confirmed that it did not contact the respondent prior to making the application. In accordance with 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice Direction 2014, an award of costs will not be made in this case.

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 August 2020

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. ↩