Decision

Decision on Intelsico Ltd

Published 24 July 2026

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5603

For a change of company name of registration No. 16695210

Decision

The company name INTELSICO LTD has been registered since 4 September 2025 under number 16695210.

By an application filed on 30 September 2025, 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 November 2025, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail UK “Tracked 48 With Signature” service. It was returned “addressee unknown”. On 25 November 2025, the Tribunal wrote to Vipashyana Dubey to inform them that the applicant had requested that they be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Vipashyana Dubey in relation to this request. On 27 March 2026, Vipashyana Dubey was joined as a co-respondent. On 27 March 2026, 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 two 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) INTELSICO LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name

(b) INTELSICO LTD and Vipashyana Dubey 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.

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.

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 an award of costs, however, on 8 June 2026, the Tribunal issued a preliminary view that no award of costs will be made as the applicant did not provide notice prior to making the application as per 10.4.1 of the Company Names Tribunal: Practice direction. This is because the Tribunal notes that the applicant decided not to attempt to contact the respondent because it considered that “searches against the company and its director did not reveal an address that we could reliably conclude to be the correct address” for the respondent. However, there is nothing to indicate that the respondent’s registered office address does not have a mail forwarding service and that any correspondence sent to the respondent’s registered office would not be collected or forwarded to the respondent. It is also noted that with the exception of the first letter sent by the tribunal, no other subsequent correspondence sent by the tribunal to the primary respondent have been returned undelivered. In the circumstances, it appears to be speculation on the applicant’s part that the address provided was not “reliable” for this purpose. As such the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s reasons for not contacting the respondent prior to making the application. 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.

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 23 July 2026

Susan Eaves
Company Names Adjudicator