Decision

Decision on Jav Tech Solutions Ltd

Updated 1 February 2024

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4376

For a change of company name of registration No. 14465495

Decision

The company name JAV TECH SOLUTIONS LTD has been registered since 7 November 2022 under number 14465495.

By an application filed on 29 June 2023, ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 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 14 July 2023, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” service and also by standard mail. On 14 July 2023, the Tribunal wrote to Nicholas Charles Bonell and Paul Gurney (directors of the primary respondent) to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings.

No comments were received from Nicholas Charles Bonell and Paul Garney in relation to this request.

On 9 August 2023, Mr Bonell and Mr Gurney contacted the Tribunal by email as follows:

We are in receipt of a form CNA1, filed on behalf of Oracle America Inc. We would like to clarify that JAV Tech Solutions Limited, pronounced “Jay A Vee” was formed to promote our new business management solutions. The JAV component of the company name stands for John and Val who originally formed the JAV company many years ago. We have never, nor do we intend to do anything to compromise the good name of JAVA and hope you agree both companies can exist without rancor. We will offer a robust defense should this matter go to full tribunal.

The Tribunal contacted the primary respondent by telephone on 14 August 2023, in response, and advised that the respondent’s email should be copied to the applicant and that if a defence was not filed by the set deadline which was 14 August 2023 (the same day), the next stage of correspondence in the proceedings would be issued to the parties.

On 21 August 2023, Nicholas Charles Bonell and Paul Gurney were joined as co-respondents. On 21 August 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. The letter sent to the primary respondent by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” was returned “not called for”. No request for a hearing was made.

On 18 October 2023, the tribunal contacted the primary respondent, Nicholas Charles Bonell and Paul Gurney by email, regarding their letter dated 9 August 2023 and official letter dated 21 August 2023 and reiterated that as no defence has been filed within the time period set, in accordance with Rule 3(4) the adjudicator may treat the application as not being opposed.

The respondent was reminded that they may request a retrospective extension of time should it wish to defend the application. It was advised that form CNA5 and appropriate fee would be required to request an extension of time and that the adjudicator would consider the stated reasons and decide whether the extension should be granted.

The respondent was advised that if no request for an extension of time was filed by 25 October 2023 the adjudicator would consider making an order to change the company name. No request for an extension of time was received.

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) JAV TECH SOLUTIONS 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) JAV TECH SOLUTIONS LTD, Nicholas Charles Bonell and Paul Gurney 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.

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order JAV TECH SOLUTIONS LTD, Nicholas Charles Bonell and Paul Gurney, being jointly and severally liable, to pay ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 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 29 November 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. ↩