Decision

Decision on Ilogic Intel Ltd

Updated 5 April 2019

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 1808

For a change of company name of registration No. 11331165.

Decision

The company name ILOGIC INTELL LTD has been registered since 26 April 2018 under number 11331165.

By an application filed on 26 July 2018, Intel Corporation applied for a change of name of this registration under the provisions of section 69(1)(b) of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act).

A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 9 August 2018, 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” post. A review of the Royal Mail’s “track your item” website indicates that that letter was delivered at 12.50pm on 10 August 2018 and was signed for by “RICKY”.

In a letter dated 2 September 2018 (received by the Tribunal on 11 September 2018), the primary respondent’s director, Nathaniel Campbell, stated:

“I’m writing in relation to a CNA1 filed against my company…. I only received this letter and information on the 21/08/2018, therefore, I would like to request additional time to file my defence in relation to matter as I don’t believe I have had adequate notification. My business partner who holds a significant amount of shares and influence within the business (35%) Mr Baljeet Garcha is currently out of the country and doesn’t return until 02/10/2018.

I would like to request an extension period of up until 10/10/2018 to file my company’s deference (sic). I require this extension period so I can seek the appropriate legal counsel and have the ability to consult fully with my business partner Mr Garcha (who’s currently out of the country)”.

On 10 September 2018, the Tribunal received an email from Mr Campbell, attached to which was, inter alia, a copy of his letter dated 2 September 2018 mentioned above. The operative part of that email reads as follows:

“I called today as I was concerned that we haven’t yet had any correspondence on the letter we sent to you in relation to the case referenced above. We first sent a letter of response on the 30/9/2018 [I assume this is a typographical error and should read 30/8/2018] to your office then resent the same letter this time recorded delivery again towards the latter part of last week.

[Mr Campbell goes on to provide details of the contents of the letter mentioned above] adding, “as we didn’t receive any prior communication from the company that filed against us…”

Please find attached image of a copy of the letter we sent to you both on the 30/9/2018 (sic) and again last week this time recorded delivery…

Please provide me with an update on this, I do hope you can grant our reasonable request of a months extension to file our deference (sic) based on the circumstances”.

The Tribunal wrote to Mr Campbell on 26 September 2018, stating:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 10 September 2018, in which you request an extension of time for one month to file a defence.

Before the Adjudicator can consider the request, you are required to file a form CNA5 (a fee of £100 must accompany the form) within 14 days of the date of this letter, i.e. on or before 10 October 2018.

The official file contains a reference to a telephone conversation held on 28 September 2018 between Mr Campbell and the Casework Examiner, in which Mr Campbell explained that he had not received a copy of the official letter of 26 September 2018. In an email dated 28 September 2018, the Tribunal sent Mr Campbell a further copy of the official letter of 26 September 2018.

On 30 October 2018, 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.

The primary respondent did not file a defence within the one month period specified by the adjudicator under rule 3(3), nor did it file Form CNA5 to seek additional time to do so. 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) ILOGIC INTELL LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name ^{[footnote 1]};

(b) ILOGIC INTELL LTD shall:

(i) take such steps as are within its 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.

Costs

Despite Mr Campbell’s comment above, i.e. “…we didn’t receive any prior communication from the company that filed against us…”, attached to the Form CNA1 is a copy of a letter sent by the applicant’s professional advisers to the primary respondent’s registered office on 21 June 2018, in which the primary respondent was allowed until 5 July 2018 to comply with the applicant’s request. That letter states:

If we do not receive the written undertakings from you by 5 July 2018, or if you fail to comply with any of the undertakings, we are instructed to consult with Intel in relation to taking further action against your company.

In those circumstances and as Intel Corporation has been successful, I am satisfied that it is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order ILOGIC INTELL LTD to pay Intel Corporation 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 13 December 2018

Christopher Bowen
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. ↩