Decision

Decision on Intel Property Services Limited

Updated 10 March 2022

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3507

For a change of company name of registration No. 13135805

Decision

The company name INTEL PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED has been registered since 15 January 2021 under number 13135805.

By an application filed on 18 May 2021, INTEL CORPORATION 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 May 2021, 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 25 May 2021, the Tribunal wrote to Chisom Ekeh to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Chisom Ekeh in relation to this request. On 25 August 2021, Chisom Ekeh was joined as a co-respondent. On 25 August 2021, 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). 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) INTEL PROPERTY 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) INTEL PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED and Chisom Ekeh 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 response to question 7 on the Form CNA1 (“Did you warn the company that if it did not change its name that you would start legal proceedings against it? If ‘yes’, when did you warn the company?”) the applicant states:

“The Applicant’s Representative asked the company to change its name in a letter dated 2 March 2021”.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant on 22 October 2021 to seek further clarification regarding the content of the applicant’s letter of 2 March 2021. In response, on 27 October 2021, the applicant indicated that it wrote to the respondent on three separate occasions; 2 March 2021, 7 April 2021 and 16 April 2021. The applicant also referred the adjudicator to paragraph 7 of the Tribunal’s decision in application number 170 (decision O-319-10) issued on 15 September 2010.

On 29 November 2021, having considered the applicant’s comments the adjudicator issued a preliminary view that no award of costs would be made because although the applicant had confirmed that it had contacted the respondent prior to filing its application, it did not warn the company that if it did not change its name it would start legal proceedings against it. The adjudicator noted the wording of question 7 on the current Form CNA1 which reads:

“7. Did you warn the company that if it did not change its name that you would start legal proceedings against it? If ‘yes’, when did you warn the company?”

This is in contrast to the CNA1 version in use in 2010, where there was no mention of legal proceedings, the relevant question reads:

“6. Did you contact the company/limited liability partnership in relation to this matter prior to filing the application? If so, when did you do so and what did you say to the company/limited liability partnership?”.

The adjudicator noted that it is therefore implicit that warning the company that if it did not change its company name the applicant would start legal proceedings, is a requirement of notice within the current form CNA1. The Tribunal therefore considered the requirements of 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice direction 2014 had not been met. 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 accordance with 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice Direction 2014, an award of costs will therefore 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 January 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. ↩