Decision

Decision on Boku Labs Ltd

Published 14 October 2025

Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 4268 by Boku, Inc. for a change to the company name BOKU LABS LTD, a company incorporated under number 14189950

Background and pleadings

1. The company name BOKU LABS LTD (“the primary respondent”) has been registered since incorporation on 22 June 2022 under company number 14189950. The register of companies describes the primary respondent’s nature of business (SIC) as “62090– Other information technology service activities.”

2. By an application filed on 28 March 2023, Boku, Inc. (“the applicant”) applies under section 69(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) for the primary respondent’s name to be changed.

3. The applicant claims that it has goodwill associated with the name “Boku”. It says that it is a mobile payments company which provides businesses with the ability to accept mobile payments online from consumers. The applicant further asserts that it provides the world’s largest mobile payments network, featuring more than 340 mobile payment types in 91 countries worldwide, that it processes more than $9 billion of payments per year, and that it has more than 28 million active users monthly. It also says six of the seven most valuable companies in the world are live on its platform, including Amazon, Apple, Google, Sony, Microsoft and Facebook. Consequently, the applicant claims that it has goodwill or reputation of which “Boku” is distinctive in relation to financial transactions, particularly mobile payments.

4. The applicant says that the primary respondent’s name begins with “BOKU” and that the names are sufficiently similar that use of “BOKU LABS LTD” would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection with the applicant where none exists. The applicant therefore asks that the name be removed from the Companies Register and be changed to a name which is not offending.

5. The primary respondent filed a notice of defence denying the applicant’s grounds and requiring the applicant to prove that it has goodwill associated with the name “Boku”. The primary respondent also relies on the following statutory defences:

• That the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill;

• That the name was adopted in good faith; and

• That the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

6 The primary respondent also originally relied on a defence that the company was operating under the name or that it was proposing to do so and had incurred substantial start-up costs in preparation. However, following the repeal of s. 69(4)(b) of the Act on 4 March 2024 with no transitional provisions, this defence is no longer available.

7. Phuc Nguyen Hai To, who is a director of the primary respondent, was joined to the proceedings as a co-respondent in accordance with s. 69(3) of the Act.

8. Both parties filed evidence. Neither party requested a hearing and only the applicant filed written submissions in lieu. This decision is taken following a careful reading of all of the papers.

9. The applicant is represented by Fieldfisher LLP and the respondents are represented by Bird & Bird LLP.

10. Both parties seek an award of costs.

Evidence

11. The applicant’s evidence is provided by Jonathan Prideaux, the applicant’s CEO. Mr Prideaux filed two witness statements, each with exhibits; his second statement is in reply to the respondents’ evidence. Mr Prideaux’s first statement is mainly directed at demonstrating the applicant’s reputation, though there is also some evidence about other companies which include “BOKU” in their names and about the primary respondent’s business/proposed business. Mr Prideaux’s second statement is largely opinion, which should properly have been filed as submissions.

12. The respondents’ evidence is given by Phuc Nguyen Hai To, the co-respondent. Mr To is one of the founders of the primary respondent. He gives evidence about the choice of the company name and the steps taken both before and after the primary respondent was incorporated in preparation for trading under the name. Mr To also provides some information about other companies using “BOKU” in their name.

13. I have read all of the evidence. I will refer to it, as I consider necessary, at the appropriate points in this decision.

Legislation

14. Section 69 of the Act states:

(1) A person (“the applicant”) may object to a company’s registered name on the ground-

(a) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or

(b) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom or elsewhere would be likely to mislead members of the public in the United Kingdom or elsewhere by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.

(2) The objection must be made by application to a company names adjudicator (see section 70).

(3) The company concerned shall be the primary respondent to the application.

Any of the following may be joined as respondents-

(a) any member or person who was a member at the time at which the name was registered;

(b) any director or person who was a director at the time at which the name was registered.

(4) If the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is established, it is for the respondents to show-

(a) that the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill; or

(b) [Repealed]

(c) that the name was registered in the ordinary course of a company formation business and the company is available for sale to the applicant on the standard terms of that business; or

(d) that the name was adopted in good faith; or

(e) that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent.

If none of those is shown, the objection shall be upheld.

(5) If the facts mentioned in subsection (4)(a), … or (c) are established, the objection shall nevertheless be upheld if the applicant shows that the main purpose of the respondents (or any of them) in registering the name was to obtain money (or other consideration) from the applicant or prevent him from registering the name.

(6) If the objection is not upheld under subsection (4) or (5), it shall be dismissed.

(7) In this section “goodwill” includes reputation of any description.

Preliminary issue

15. In his second witness statement, Mr Prideaux requests that the majority of the respondents’ evidence be disregarded. The same request is repeated in the applicant’s written submissions in lieu. This is on the basis that, s. 69(4)(b) having been repealed, there is no “operating” defence available and the evidence in question goes to that defence.

16. If the applicant wished to request that evidence be struck out, it ought to have made a separate application in clear terms. Regardless, whilst it is true that s. 69(4)(b) no longer provides an operating defence, it is plainly relevant to the good faith defence under s. 69(4)(d) whether the primary respondent is trading, has made serious preparations for doing so and, if so, the nature of the use it has made or proposes to make of the name. Indeed, the respondents’ witness statement expressly states that the defences are addressed together and that the evidence applies to both defences. In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate to strike out the respondents’ evidence as requested.

Goodwill/reputation

17. Goodwill is defined at s. 69(7) of the Act as including a “reputation of any description”. Consequently, goodwill includes but is not limited to Lord Macnaghten’s classic definition in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217 at 223:

What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start.

18. The relevant date for the purpose of proving goodwill/reputation is the date of the application for a change to the company name, i.e., 28 March 2023.

Botanica Agriculture and Extraction Limited v Botanica Limited [2022] EWHC 2957 (Ch) and MB Inspection Ltd v Hi-Rope Ltd [2010] RPC 18.

19. The applicant’s evidence is that the applicant was founded in 2009 and is a financial technology and payment processor business. It provides customers with the ability to accept various forms of payment online from their customers. Mr Prideaux says that the applicant specialises in processing alternative payment methods including carrier billing, e-wallet payments and account-to-account/real-time payments.

Prideaux 1, [4].

Its 2022 accounts say that “Boku provides a global mobile payments network through its mobile-first platform […]”. It points to different local payment methods, such as mobile wallets and account-to-account payments and it says “Boku builds custom connections to the most popular [payment methods] incorporating bespoke features that help our merchants to enrol more customers and sell more products”.

JP25

The global payments network appears to be called “M1ST”.

JP26

20. I also note the following evidence in particular:

• the applicant has traded on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange since 2017. “BOKU, INC” and “boku” are shown on a company information page of the London Stock Exchange’;

JP2

• a company owned by the applicant (Boku Account Services UK Ltd) is regulated by the FCA and appears to have been regulated since 2007; the name “Boku Accounts” is registered as a trading name of the company;

JP3

• as of 31 March 2023 (just after the relevant date) the applicant had five UK investor shareholders;

Prideaux 1, [14.2.5].

• since January 2017, the applicant has generated approximately USD29.5 million from transactions processed in the UK;

Prideaux 1, [13.2].

• the applicant has had between 1.4 million and 2.1 million monthly active users in the UK between 2017 and 2022;

Prideaux 1, [13.3].

• the applicant is said to have contracts in the UK with the mobile operators EE, O2, Three and Vodafone and partnerships with Lloyds Bank and Citibank in the UK. There are no specifics about the dates of these contracts/partnerships; they appear to be current at the date of the statement in August 2023;

Prideaux 1, [13.4].

• the applicant processes payment transactions in the UK on behalf of, for example, Apple Billing, Spotify and Netflix. This appears to be the position at the date of the statement and there is no information about when it first started;

Ibid.

• the website www.boku.com has been operational since 2009 and since 2011 has offered mobile phone payment services. There are archive prints to 2022 and what appear to be prints current at the date of Mr Prideaux’s first statement or thereabouts. Apple, Spotify, Netflix and other global companies are mentioned on prints prior to the relevant date;

JP5- JP24.

• Boku won a Rocco MNO award in 2019 and “best performing company” in the banking and insurance software categories of the Megabuyte awards in both 2019 and 2020. It is unclear if these are UK awards;

JP27.

• Boku also won awards dated 2018 from the London Stock Exchange’s AIM, the 2018 Global Carrier Billing Summit (held in London) and “International Star”. It is unclear what the latter is;

JP28, JP31.

• there are undated awards to BOKU from EE and awards dated 2016 to 2018 from Vodafone;

JP29, JP30.

• Boku is mentioned in eight articles dated between February 2012 and 5 January 2023 from the Times, Financial Times and Guardian. Most of these are about its joining the stock exchange or are from an investment perspective (e.g., the company’s value and prospects as an investment). There are references in the more recent articles to Boku having 1 million users in the UK and the fact that it is used by mobile operators O2 (it is presumed, though the sentence is cut off), EE and Vodafone, in Microsoft and Apple’s app stores, and by Spotify;

JP32-JP39.

• There appears to be a London office employing 53 staff but it is not clear from the evidence whether this office was in operation at the relevant date.

Prideaux 1, [6] and JP1 to Prideaux 1.

21. Although there is reasonable amount of evidence, it is not well focused. In particular, it is difficult to know how the business is promoted to consumers, particularly end users. The “.com” domain on the boku.com website is neutral as to the territory to which it is directed and there is nothing else on the website to indicate it is directed at the UK market. Although Mr Prideaux says that companies such as Apple Billing and Lloyds Bank use the applicant’s services in the UK, that evidence relates to the position after the relevant date. As the website evidence does not clearly show the UK position (the companies referenced are themselves global companies and/or are not companies which clearly operate in the UK, such as Tencent), it cannot be inferred that the start of the applicant’s business with these companies in the UK correlates to their first appearance on the website. The evidence is that there have been 1 million or more users of Boku in the UK over a number of years. However, the Guardian article detailing the upcoming launch of the business in 2012 says that Boku will supply the technology allowing users to use the Mastercard PayPass NFC payment system and that customers will be provided with an app. The image which accompanies the article does not show “Boku” and the same article says that the system will be marketed by mobile network providers rather than Boku (and that at the time none had signed up). I cannot be sure whether the app would be a Boku app or be promoted under the mobile operator’s own branding, nor can I tell the extent to which, if at all, the 1 million-plus users annually in the UK were aware that the product they were using was a “Boku” product. There is no evidence at all of any marketing that may have taken place in the UK, whether to end users or other businesses. However, I accept that the UK mobile network operator Vodafone appears to have used the technology at least between 2016 and 2019 and that by 2019 EE and O2 were also customers; all of these operators as well as Three were Boku customers at the date of Mr Prideaux’s first statement, which is five months after the relevant date. It is unlikely that all of these businesses became customers in those five months, particularly those which had previously had a relationship with the applicant. It is more likely that Vodafone, EE and O2’s business with the applicant has been consistent over the period covering the relevant date. These are Boku customers to whom the technology is likely to have been promoted under the Boku name. They are not small businesses but large domestic mobile network operators. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that there was a qualifying goodwill in relation to mobile phone payment technology of which Boku was distinctive at the relevant date.

The names

22. The parties’ names are Boku Labs Ltd and Boku. “Ltd” merely indicates corporate status and so this element does not have a bearing upon the comparison of the names.

MB Inspection Limited v Hi-Rope Limited [2010] RPC 18.

Both names include “Boku” as the first element but the contested name also includes “Labs”, which creates a difference. There is evidence that “boku” is a known abbreviation of the French “beaucoup”, meaning “a lot”. Most people are unlikely to understand this, though it is possible that some may perceive that meaning. For those who see “Boku” as an invented word, it has no meaning but is highly distinctive. For those who see “Boku” as a phonetic spelling of “beaucoup”, it is distinctive and the same meaning will be given to the word in both names. “Labs” is likely to be understood as meaning a place where certain activities, usually scientific activities, take place; in the context of goods and services, it will be perceived as meaning a place where products (goods or services) are created. It is therefore not a very distinctive element of the name irrespective of how “Boku” is perceived. It does not strike me as likely that those users who recognise “Boku” as a version of “beaucoup” will see “Boku Labs” as meaning “a lot of labs”, given the mixing of languages and that it is ungrammatical in both French and English because of the absence of “of”/“de”, though I accept it is possible. Taking all of the above into account, I consider that these names are sufficiently similar that the primary respondent’s name is likely to mislead. That is certainly the case for the relevant public who sees “Boku” as a fanciful word but I also consider that it is likely for those who recognise “Boku” as a version of “beaucoup”. The conditions at s. 69(1)(b) are made out.

Defences

23. As the ground specified in s. 69(1)(b) is established, the onus switches to the primary respondent to establish whether it can rely on any of the defences pleaded.

The name was adopted in good faith (s. 69(4)(d))

24. In view of the amendments to the Act, this now appears to be the primary respondent’s main defence. The onus is on the respondents to show that the contested name was adopted in good faith. This is evident from the wording of s. 69(4) of the Act, which reverses the usual persuasive and evidential burdens in civil law cases where good faith will normally be presumed and bad faith must be proven by the person alleging it. Once the respondents establish a prima facie case that the name was adopted in good faith, it is for the applicant to rebut it. The relevant date is the date on which the name was adopted, in this case the date of incorporation, i.e., 22 June 2022.

25. The following principles can be extracted from the judgments of the Privy Council in Barlow Clowes v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37, and the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in Niru Battery Manufacturing v Milestone Trading Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1446:

(i) Good faith is not displayed by certain kinds of sharp practice which fall short of outright dishonesty or by dishonesty itself: Niru Battery at [164].

(ii) There is a combined subjective/objective approach to the honesty of a party’s behaviour. This involves (i) a consideration of what the party knew at the time of a transaction and (ii) how that party’s action would be viewed by applying normally acceptable standards of commercial behaviour: Barlow Clowes at [15] to [18] and [28] to [32].

26. Mr To’s evidence regarding the choice of name is that “[the] ‘Boku’ element of the Company Name was chosen because ‘Boku’ is a phonetic version of the French word ‘beaucoup’ which means a lot of. We felt that this meaning (‘a lot of’) was synonymous with our intentions for the business, i.e. a lot of crypto currency being available”. He provides a screenshot showing a message displaying a Wikipedia definition of the word from him to one of the other founders of the business on 5 June 2022. The accompanying comment is “Lol it’s a real word”.

PT-2

27. The following evidence is also relevant:

• the domain name registration for “boku.money” was purchased on 14 June 2022. Mr To’s evidence is that if the domain name had not been available, they would likely have chosen a different name as it was important to have the “.money” website;

PT-3; To, [14].

• a “pitch deck” outlining the “Boku” cryptocurrency investment business proposition for investors, which Mr To says was commissioned and used for pitches before the relevant date. The document itself is not dated but contains data from May and June 2022 (pp. 7, 9);

PT-5; To, [15].

• Mr To says that interviews had been conducted and offers of employment made before the relevant date to the individuals named in the pitch deck. Details of the employment agreements with the primary respondent are in evidence, dated August 2022;

To, [16]-[17], PT-6.

• Mr To says that in August 2022 a recruitment company was appointed to help with recruitment. Documentary evidence of the invoice, to the primary respondent, and of a post advertised by the company on behalf of “Boku” is provided. I note that there is reference to Boku being slated for launch in 2022 and to dissolving the barriers stopping the consumer market from “jumping on the blockchain”, said to be something that the primary respondent’s founding team previously helped to do at Revolut;

To, [18]-[19]; PT-7, PT-8.

• invoice evidence showing professional fees for advice about a sponsor licence, addressed to the primary respondent, which Mr To says related to the hire of employees from outside the UK;

PT-9

• evidence of a share purchase agreement between the primary respondent and investors dated 15 September 2022, along with professional fees incurred in relation to the investment. Although heavily redacted, the agreement shows investment totalling almost USD 6.7 million;

PT-10, PT-12; To, [20], [22].

• a press report dated 20 October 2022 about the investment secured (and denied by Mr To in the article). It describes “Boku” as a “DeFi investment app”;

PT-11.

• evidence of outlay in October and November 2022 for software for sharing information across the company, design/branding services and office space, billed to “Boku Labs” of “Boku Labs Ltd”.

To, [23]-[25], PT-13 -PT-16.

28. The applicant says that the fact that the word “boku” may have a meaning does not preclude bad faith. That is true, of course. The documentary evidence showing a definition of “boku” is not convincing either way, because all it does is show that Mr To looked the word up in reference material before the relevant date. What really matters is what came before that: how he came up with or came across the word, prompting him to look in a dictionary. If it was because he/the founders had become aware of the applicant’s business and thought that an association with that company might give their own business an advantage, that would call into question the genuineness of the choice of name. There is, however, no evidence either way about this key point. Mr To’s evidence that the name was chosen because the meaning was synonymous with the business has not been challenged. However, the respondents’ failure to explain what they knew or did not know about the applicant’s goodwill does not assist the respondents in discharging the burden of showing that the contested name was adopted in good faith.

29. The applicant says that the primary respondent cannot be said to have adopted the name in accordance with honest commercial practices or good faith if it did not employ reasonable diligence in checking whether it conflicted with an existing similar company name or trade mark. It relies on the Opinion of AG Sharpston in Céline SARL v Céline SA, C-17/06 [ECLI:EU:C:2007:39] for this proposition. The Opinion of an AG is not binding but I recognise that the Court of Justice in its judgment in that case said:

34. In that regard, it must be noted that, in assessing whether the condition of honest practice is satisfied, account must be taken first of the extent to which the use of the third party’s name is understood by the relevant public, or at least a significant section of that public, as indicating a link between the third party’s goods or services and the trade-mark proprietor or a person authorised to use the trade mark, and secondly of the extent to which the third party ought to have been aware of that. Another factor to be taken into account when making the assessment is whether the trade mark concerned enjoys a certain reputation in the Member State in which it is registered and its protection is sought, from which the third party might profit in marketing his goods or services (Anheuser-Busch, paragraph 83).

30. Céline was a trade mark case. The law in question is governed by the Trade Mark Directive (at the time, 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988) and the Court was seised of the question of how “in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters” in Article 6(1) of the Directive should be interpreted. It was not concerned with good or bad faith and is therefore not directly applicable to the question before me. I note that, under trade mark law, the fact that an applicant knew or should have known that a third party was using a particular sign would also not be sufficient, in itself, to establish that a trade mark was filed in bad faith (see, for example, Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker, C-320/12, EU:C:2013:435 and Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (C-104/18) EU:C:2019:724 at [55]). Nevertheless, I accept that it would be considered reasonable business practice to check before registering a company name, or indeed a trade mark, whether there is already another company operating under the name in a field of business which is likely to bring the parties into conflict. I do not accept that the mere fact that a party knows of another business operating under the name, or with a registration for the name, is itself determinative of good or bad faith.

31. Unlike the Trade Mark Register, the Companies Register does not include a list of goods and services which are tied to the company name; although there is an indication of the business area, it is less specific than in trade mark law and is not fixed. Consequently, it is not possible to search the Companies Register in the same way as the Trade Mark Register to see if a particular name is already registered for particular goods/services. I agree that most reasonable businesses would check the Register for conflict but a failure to do so does not have the same importance in a company names case that it might have in a trade mark case, because of the limitations of the information on the Companies Register. In the present case, there is no evidence whether the respondents did or did not check the Companies Register to see if there were any other companies with the same or a similar name. However, had the respondent searched the Register, it would not have found the applicant because its name is not registered with Companies House. Of nine companies on the Register which include the word “BOKU”, two are owned by the applicant: Boku Account Service UK Ltd and Boku Network Services UK Ltd. The latter name suggests telecommunications services but the former is, according to Mr To, registered for “financial intermediation not elsewhere classified”. That is a wide term from which it is not possible to glean concrete information about the nature of the company’s activities.

32. There is no information about whether the primary respondent searched the Trade Mark Register. If it had done so, it would have found the applicant’s registered trade mark for the identical word “BOKU”, registered in class 36 for various financial services, among other things. The primary respondent’s own trade mark specification is consistent with its avowed intention to operate in the cryptocurrency investment field. However, there is clearly a paper conflict because the applicant’s specification includes the class headings for financial services. That said, the specific terms in the applicant’s specification are directed at payment services. These terms tend to suggest the particular area of trade in which the applicant operates, which is not cryptocurrency investment, although I recognise that the inclusion of class headings mean that the specification is not limited to payment services.

33. The primary respondent’s pleaded case is that the sector of activity and consumer base between the parties do not overlap (counterstatement, [11]). On the evidence before me, it appears that both companies operate in the financial technology arena but the applicant is concerned with facilitating payments via mobile phone and the primary respondent is involved in cryptocurrency investment. In the absence of clear evidence, these appear to me to be distinct fields of the financial services market. As regards the applicant’s actual reputation amongst relevant consumers, while there is evidence that the applicant has received some press coverage, most of it is concerned with the applicant’s entry into trading on the London Stock Exchange and/or the applicant’s prospects as a stock market/investment asset. The report detailing Boku’s imminent arrival in the UK was a decade old by the relevant date. Further, the applicant’s evidence only establishes that it has offered goods or services under the name to other businesses, not end users; the respondents’ evidence indicates that it targets the consumer market. There is some evidence of internet searches returning results for the applicant.

JP50 – JP54.

However, it is not clearly dated or relevant to the UK. There is one reference to Boku being an Orange developer but my understanding is that Orange (the mobile operator) ceased trading some time before the relevant date. Therefore, the fact that internet searches for “boku” may return results primarily concerned with the applicant is relevant but it is not determinative. I accept that there may be better evidence available but on the evidence before me, even if the respondents had been aware of the applicant’s existence, it was reasonable to conclude that their areas of business were sufficiently distinct that there would be no conflict. In this regard, I note that in the trade mark proceedings between the parties the applicant was only able to establish genuine use for a limited part of its specification, consistent with the trade it has shown before me, and that these services were held to be dissimilar to those of the applicant’s specification.

34. Turning to the activities of the primary respondent, the evidence makes clear that there has been substantial investment in the primary respondent, both in terms of outlay by the respondents on matters such as the domain name and fees for various services to support the business, and in terms of venture capital obtained from third parties. I recognise that some of the evidence post-dates the relevant date but all of it points towards the registration being made with the intention of trading under the name. I also bear in mind that those behind the primary respondent appear to be continuing or developing a business concerning “the blockchain” in which they have had previous experience. There is nothing in the respondents’ conduct before or after incorporation to suggest that the name was registered for gain of any sort to be extracted from the applicant. Given the distance between the areas of business and relevant publics, it cannot be inferred that consumers would make any association between the companies, nor that the primary respondent would gain an advantage, unfair or otherwise.

35. In summary, there is no positive evidence about how the primary respondent’s name was chosen or about whether the primary respondent or any of its founders knew of the applicant’s business at the relevant date. It would have been very easy for the respondents to provide this evidence and it is a clear lacuna in the respondents’ evidence. Reasonable people of business would perform at least an internet search, which would have revealed the applicant. However, knowledge alone is only one piece of the jigsaw. The Register evidence is of limited assistance or tends to point to the applicant having a different area of business. It is important, in my view, that the applicant has only shown limited goodwill in the UK relating to mobile payments services provided to business customers. There is no reason to suspect that the respondents could or should have found better evidence of the applicant’s business than the applicant itself has been able to provide. I accept the respondents’ submission that the fields of business are distinct, even though they are both covered by the broad umbrella of financial services. It is also important that the evidence concerning the primary respondent’s business shows a number of concrete steps to start a business and discloses no reproachable conduct. On balance, whilst there is no explanation of how the name was arrived at, I consider that the adoption of the name would be viewed as commercially acceptable behaviour when judged objectively. I accept the respondents’ claim that the name was adopted in good faith.

Other defences

36. I will comment only briefly on the other pleaded defences. The first is s. 69(4)(a), i.e., that the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill. In view of the evidence of use filed by the applicant, this defence cannot succeed.

37. As for the s. 69(4)(e) defence, i.e., that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent, the relevant date for the assessment is the date of the application.

MB Inspection v Hi-Rope.

Although the parties currently appear to trade in separate fields, there is nothing to prevent the respondents from changing or expanding the business in future (or selling it to someone who will). As the names of the parties are similar to such a degree that they are likely to mislead, I am not satisfied that use of the respondent’s name could not adversely affect the applicant to any significant extent.

Outcome

38. The respondents have established a defence under s. 69(4)(d). Subject to any appeal, the applicant’s objection to the company name is dismissed.

Costs

39. The primary respondent has been successful. The Tribunal awards costs from the published scale at paragraph 10 of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction. This is intended to provide a contribution, rather than not full compensation, to the successful party. The official fee for Form CNA2 is fully re-imbursed. I assess costs as follows:

Fee for filing the Form CNA2: £150
Considering the application and preparing the counterstatement: £400
Considering the applicant’s evidence: £500

Total: £1,050

40. I therefore order Boku, Inc. to pay BOKU LABS LTD the sum of £1,050 within 21 days of the expiry of the period allowed for appeal or, or within 21 days of the final determination of this case if any appeal against this decision is unsuccessful (subject to any order of the appellate tribunal). Under section 74(1) of the Act, an appeal can only be made in relation to the decision to dismiss the application; there is no separate right of appeal in relation to costs. Any notice of appeal must be given within one month of the date of this decision. Appeal is to the High Court in England & Wales and Northern Ireland, and to the Court of Session in Scotland. The Company Names Tribunal must be advised if an appeal is lodged.

7 October 2025

Heather Harrison
Company Names Adjudicator