Decision

Decision on Matchesfashion86 Ltd

Updated 1 July 2022

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 3697

For a change of company name of registration No. 13702016

Decision

The company name MATCHESFASHION86 LTD has been registered since 25 October 2021 under number 13702016.

By an application filed on 18 November 2021, MATCHESFASHION LIMITED 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 December 2021, 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 14 December 2021, the Tribunal wrote to Nguyen Van Nam to inform him that the applicant had requested that he be joined to the proceedings. No comments were received from Nguyen Van Nam in relation to this request. On 27 January 2022, Nguyen Van Nam was joined as a co-respondent. On 27 January 2022, 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 co-respondent by Royal Mail “Signed For” service was returned “not called for”. 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) MATCHESFASHION86 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) MATCHESFASHION86 LTD and Nguyen Van Nam 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. on-compliance may result in an action being brought for contempt of court and may result in a custodial sentence.

The applicant is requesting its costs. In response to question 7. of Form CNA1: “Did you warn the company that if it did not change its name that you would start legal proceedings against it? If ‘yes’, when did you warn the company?” the applicant states:

No – see continuation sheet.

The continuation sheet contains a completed “Report suspicious activity to Companies House” document with a cover letter addressed to Companies House dated 18 November 2021 in which the applicant states:

Matchesfashion has been made aware of two companies, ……and MATCHESFASHION86 LTD … Both companies have been registered with Nguyen Van Nam as Director. The companies have been registered using two of Matchesfashion’s physical addresses in London; ……, and MATCHESFASHION86 LTD …, registered at 87 Marylebone Street, London, England, W1U 4QU….The Marylebone address is that of Matchfashion’s more recent new boutiques

In addition, in response to question 16. of Form CNA1: “Please provide any other relevant information you may have that you consider relevant to this application” the applicant states:

A separate Suspicious Activity Report has been filed relating to both registered company…… and 13702016 MATCHESFASHION86 LTD, both of which were registered on the same day by Nguyen Van Nam, using different addresses for the Applicant’s retail outlet addresses in the UK.

Given the primary respondent’s registered office address is one of the applicant’s retail outlet addresses and the fact that the respondent has played no part in these proceedings, the applicant’s decision not to contact the primary respondent before filing its application was not, in my view, unreasonable and ought not to prevent it from being awarded costs.

MATCHESFASHION LIMITED having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order MATCHESFASHION86 LTD and Nguyen Van Nam to pay MATCHESFASHION LIMITED 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 22 April 2022

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. ↩