Decision

Decision on UK Nuohua International Biotechnology Co., Limited

Updated 23 January 2020

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 1855

For a change of company name of registration No. 11228172

Decision

The company name UK NOVARTIS INTERNATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED has been registered since 27 February 2018 under number 11228172.

By an application filed on 27 September 2018, NOVARTIS AG 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 5 October 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” service and also by standard mail. On 5 October 2018, the Tribunal wrote to Chujuan Li to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Chujuan Li in relation to this request. On 22 November 2018, Chujuan Li was joined as a co-respondent.

On 22 November 2018, the parties were advised that UK NOVARTIS INTERNATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED had changed its name to UK NUOHUA INTERNATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED and that it was the Adjudicator’s preliminary view that the new name did not appear to be an offending name and the Tribunal was therefore minded to close the case as being “without object”. The parties were granted a period of two weeks to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. In response, on 6 December 2018, the applicant filed a form CNA4 to request a hearing on the matter on the basis that “Nuohua and the corresponding Chinese characters are nothing more than the direct translation of the name Novartis”. The matter was heard on 27 February 2019 and the adjudicator overturned the preliminary view of 22 November 2018. The applicant was invited a file an amended or new version of CNA1 to reflect the new position.

On 14 March 2019, the applicant filed an amended CNA1. A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 22 May 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. A copy of the application was also sent to the co-respondent Chujuan Li.

On 30 August 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. 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)UK NUOHUA INTERNATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY CO., 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) UK NUOHUA INTERNATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED and Chujuan Li 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.

NOVARTIS AG, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order UK NUOHUA INTERNATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED and Chujuan Li, being jointly and severally liable, to pay NOVARTIS AG 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 29th November 2019.

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. ↩