DNA Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited challenged an order dated 8 June 2026 passed by the Regional Director under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order directed it to change its name because of its resemblance to the name of the complainant company, DNA Forensics Laboratory Private Limited.<\/p>\n
The petitioner\u2019s principal objection concerned the source of the proceedings. It argued that Section 16(1)(a) contemplated action based on the Central Government\u2019s own opinion, whereas Section 16(1)(b) expressly permitted an application by a registered trade mark proprietor. According to the petitioner, an application from the complainant company could not support proceedings under Section 16(1)(a).<\/p>\n
During the hearing, the petitioner\u2019s counsel admitted that both companies worked in exactly the same field: DNA testing. This overlap also informed the Court\u2019s assessment of the similarity between their names.<\/p>\n
The Court rejected the argument that the origin of the information determined the validity of the proceedings. According to the Court, an order under Section 16(1)(a) does not become invalid or fall outside jurisdiction merely because an applicant supplied the information that prompted it.<\/p>\n
The Court explained that the relevant decision under Section 16(1)(a) is the Central Government\u2019s opinion that a newly registered company\u2019s name is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name of a previously registered company. On forming that opinion, the Government can direct a change of name.<\/p>\n
In other words, an application may bring the problem to the Government\u2019s attention without displacing the Government\u2019s responsibility to form its own opinion. The Court held that excluding action solely because an application initiated the process would unduly restrict the regulator\u2019s power.<\/p>\n
The Court did not accept that this interpretation would make Section 16(1)(b) redundant. It observed that Section 16(1)(b) naturally operates through an application by an aggrieved registered trade mark proprietor.<\/p>\n
By comparison, the Court described Section 16(1)(a) as a wider power that permits the Central Government to direct rectification on its own where company names are identical or too similar. The existence of that power did not require the Government to disregard information supplied by an affected company.<\/p>\n
The reasoning therefore concerned the relationship between two statutory routes for rectification of company names. The Court was not deciding a claim for trade mark infringement or passing off.<\/p>\n
The petitioner relied on observations in M\/S T.T. Ltd. that Section 16(1)(a) vested a suo motu power in the Central Government and that applications under that provision were not maintainable.<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court examined those observations in the context of the earlier case. It noted that the Madras High Court had considered an attempt to obtain rectification after a long passage of time. Although Section 16(1)(a) did not prescribe a limitation period, the Madras High Court had reasoned that the power had to be exercised within a reasonable time.<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court also noted that the applicant in that case had unsuccessfully sought an injunction in a trade mark suit before approaching the authority under Section 16(1)(a). The Madras High Court had considered the earlier judicial findings and the objection based on res judicata.<\/p>\n
Having discussed that context, the Delhi High Court held that an application supplying information did not, by itself, invalidate an order under Section 16(1)(a). It did not prescribe a general limitation period for proceedings under that provision.<\/p>\n
The Court observed that a registering authority could not be expected invariably to identify every resemblance between a proposed name and previously registered company names. Even after registration, an existing company could be aggrieved by a name that was too close to its own, particularly where both companies operated in similar fields.<\/p>\n
In this case, the petitioner admitted that both companies provided DNA testing services. Against that background, the Court found the resemblance between \u201cDNA Forensics Test Solutions Pvt. Ltd.\u201d and \u201cDNA Forensics Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.\u201d too close to ignore.<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The pending applications were rendered infructuous. Consequently, the petitioner obtained no interference with the Regional Director\u2019s direction to change its name.<\/p>\n
The following passages are reproduced from the judgment. Where only part of a paragraph is reproduced, it is identified as an extract.<\/p>\n
\u201cNotwithstanding this, in the opinion of the Court, the order being passed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, even though triggered by an application, cannot be considered to be invalid or without jurisdiction, for the simple reason that it was triggered on the basis of information given by an applicant.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paragraph 8 on the Opinion under Section 16<\/h3>\n
\u201cUnder Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, decision is taken by the Central Government if it opines, that the name of a newly registered company is identical with or too nearly resembles the name of a company in existence which had been previously registered, and therefore, it can direct the newly registered company to change its name.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paragraph 9 Concluding Extract on the Wider Power<\/h3>\n
\u201cHowever, Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act is a wider power, which allows the Central Government to suo motu, on its own, direct rectification of a name, in case, it is found to be identical or too similar.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paragraph 10 on Similarity Brought to Light after Registration<\/h3>\n
\u201cIt cannot be expected that for every newly registered company, there will always be a situation, where the registering authority is able to trundle through various names in order to check, whether they are identical with or nearly resemble a previously registered name. Even assuming that threshold has been overcome, the previously registered company can be naturally aggrieved, if the names are too close, particularly, if the industry or areas that they work in are almost similar, as in the present case.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paragraph 11 on the Common Field and Similar Names<\/h3>\n
\u201cIn the present case, it has been admitted by counsel for petitioner that the petitioner\/company is working in exactly the same area as that of respondent no.3\/complainant company i.e. DNA testing. Therefore, the similarity between DNA Forensics Test Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner company) and DNA Forensics Laboratory Pvt. Ltd (respondent no. 3\/complainant company) is too similar\/almost identical, to ignore.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paragraph 13 on Dismissal<\/h3>\n
\u201cAccordingly, petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Case Citation<\/h2>\n
DNA Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 9684\/2026 and CM APPL. 45118\u201345119\/2026, High Court of Delhi, decided on 24 July 2026, Anish Dayal J.<\/p>\n