Decision

Decision on Echobot Limited

Updated 2 February 2023

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3988

For a change of company name of registration No. SC534151

Decision

The company name ECHOBOT LIMITED has been registered since 4 April 2022 under number SC534151. Prior to this, the company was called METAWERSUM LTD from 28 October 2021 to 4 April 2022; THE TRU-D ROBOTS SOLUTIONS & PROTECTION HEALTH SYSTEMS LTD. from 7 June 2021 to 28 October 2021; THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS - LDS LTD. from 17 May 2021 to 7 June 2021; SS OPO LIMITED from 30 March 2021 to 17 May 2021; THE PEAKY BLINDERS COMPNAY LIMITED from 22 February 2021 to 30 March 2021; SS OPO LIMITED from 5 June 2020 to 22 February 2021 and BEYOND SCOT LTD incorporated on 29 April 2016.

By an application filed on 15 August 2022, ECHOBOT MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES GMBH 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 8 September 2022, 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 “address incomplete”. On 8 September 2022, the Tribunal wrote to Mariusz Biniak to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. The letters sent to Mariusz Bianiak by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and also by standard mail were returned “address incomplete”. No comments were received from Mariusz Biniak in relation to this request. On 28 October 2022, Mariusz Biniak was joined as a co-respondent. On 28 October 2022, 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 lettrs sent to the primary respondent and to the co-respondent by Royal Mail “Signed For” service and also by standard mail were returned “address incomplete”. No request for a hearing was made.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the one 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) ECHOBOT 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) ECHOBOT LIMITED and Mariusz Biniak 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.

The applicant is requesting its costs. In its form CNA1, the applicant states that it sent a letter to the respondent providing notice but that the letter could not be delivered and was returned “recipient not at address” prior to the filing of the CNA1. In the circumstances, an award of costs to the applicant is considered appropriate.

ECHOBOT MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES GMBH, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order ECHOBOT LIMITED and Mariusz Biniak, being jointly and severally liable, to pay ECHOBOT MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES GMBH 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 8 December 2022

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. ↩