Decision

Decision on Polycoat Ltd

Published 14 November 2025

Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application no. 4828 by Polycote UK LLP for a change to the company name of Polycoat Ltd, company registration no. 10393314

1. Company number 10393314 (“the primary respondent”) was incorporated on 26 September 2016 with the name POLYCOAT LTD. The nature of its business is recorded on the Companies House website under SIC code 43999 (Other specialised construction activities not elsewhere classified).

2. On 26 April 2024, POLYCOTE UK LLP (“the applicant”) filed an application to this Tribunal for a change of name of the primary respondent’s registration under section 69 of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”).

3. The applicant states that the name associated with it, which caused it to make the application is POLYCOTE (and Polycote UK LLP). It submits that since at least 1991 it has used the name POLYCOAT for “Manufacturing and supplying of industrial floor, wall and roof paints, coatings, repair materials, maintenance products and linings”. I will return to the claim that the applicant has used POLYCOAT rather than POLYCOTE later in this decision. The applicant claims to have acquired goodwill and reputation throughout the United Kingdom (UK). In addition, the applicant is also the registered proprietor of UK Trade Mark No. 2430934, POLYCOTE.

4. Under section 69(1)(b), the applicant claims that the company name POLYCOAT LTD is sufficiently similar to its company name, for similar and identical goods and services, and this similarity is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public by suggesting a connection between the two parties. It asserts that the applicant has experienced instances where its own customers have confused the two businesses. It claims continued use of the company name by the respondent would cause substantial damage to the applicant’s reputation and goodwill and seeks a change of name.

5. The applicant confirms that it contacted the primary respondent before making the application. It states that it informed the respondent by letter on 14 June 2023 and again on 2 February 2024 of its intention to issue proceedings against the company in the absence of written undertakings to change its company name.

6. The applicant also requested that James Rupert Blake and Adam Shaun Mutimer, both directors of the primary respondent, be joined to the proceedings.

7. On 2 July 2024, the Tribunal joined James Rupert Blake and Adam Shaun Mutimer to the proceedings as co-respondents. It also notified the primary respondent that no defence had been filed. This was an error; the CNA2 notice of defence was filed on 14 June 2024. This was rectified and the defence was duly served on 17 July 2024.

8. In its defence the primary respondent denies that the applicant had used POLYCOAT ‘spelled as such’ since 1991 and submits that its own company registration predates that of the applicant. With regard to the nature of the applicant’s business, the primary respondent says:

The Defendant agrees that the field of business in which the Applicant may have reputation and goodwill is solely limited to – and by way of admission of the representative of the Applicant – the manufacturing, supplying of industrial floor, wall and roof paints, coatings, repair materials, maintenance products, linings. All of which are considered goods and not services. All of which require manufacturing as opposed to services, which do not require manufacturing.”

9. The primary respondent does not define the nature of its business in the defence but claims, “…the service that is provided by the [primary respondent] requires a high degree of skill and diligence, whereas the sale of goods does not…”

10. It further submits that the term POLYCOAT is generic in the chemical coatings industry. It accepts that, “…if the two companies were in close proximity to [one] another, then the [a]pplicant may be able to claim passing off with a realistic causal link to disruption of business.” However, it concluded that the parties trade almost 100 miles apart, in different counties.

11. The primary respondent denied that POLYCOAT LTD was an offending name and relied on the defences provided for in section 69(4)(a), (d) and (e) of the Act.

Reproduced at paragraph 23 of this decision.

12. The applicant filed evidence in the form of a witness statement from Thomas Lee Britchford, a director of the applicant, dated 17 September 2024. It is accompanied by exhibits TLB01–TLB08.

13. The primary respondent filed evidence in the form of a witness statement from Adam Shaun Mutimer, a director of the primary respondent, dated 7 January 2025. It is accompanied by exhibits ASM01–ASM14

14. The applicant filed evidence in reply in the form of a second witness statement from Thomas Lee Britchford, dated 11 April 2025. It is accompanied by exhibits TLB09 and TLB10.

15. I shall refer to these later in my decision, to the extent that I deem necessary.

16. In these proceedings, the applicant is represented by Panoramix Limited and the primary respondent by Trademark Brothers Ltd. Neither side requested a hearing, filed final written submissions or provided a statement of costs.

17. I have taken this decision following a careful consideration of the papers on file.

Preliminary issue

18. At paragraph 11 of its application the applicant says. ‘the Applicant has used the name POLYCOAT since at least as early as 1991…’

19. In its defence the primary respondent mentions on several occasions, that it denies that the applicant has used POLYCOAT in that specific spelling.

20. At paragraph 10 of the application, when asked ‘what is the name associated with you which has caused you to make this application?’ the applicant answered, POLYCOTE and Polycote UK LLP. Furthermore, the Applicant’s trade mark registration is for the word POLYCOTE and the applicant’s website is polycote.com.

21. In the second paragraph of the first witness statement from the applicant’s director, Thomas Britchford, he states: “The Applicant has been using Polycote as a company name since 1991”.

22. It seems to me that the obvious inference is that the reference to POLYCOAT at section 11 of the applicant’s CNA1 is in fact a typographical error, as in all other parts of its pleadings, it is clear the applicant is relying on use of POLYCOTE to show goodwill and reputation. I will proceed on that basis.

Decision

23. Section 69 of the Act is as follows:

(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.

24. If the primary respondent defends the application, as here, the applicant must establish that it has goodwill or reputation in relation to a name that is the same, or sufficiently similar, to that of the primary respondent’s company name, suggesting a connection between the parties. Mere ownership of a trade mark is not sufficient. Only if this burden is discharged is it then necessary to consider if the primary respondent can rely upon defences under section 69(4) of the Act. The relevant date for assessing whether the applicant has goodwill is the date of application to this Tribunal: see Botanica Agriculture and Extraction Limited v Botanica Limited [2022] EWHC 2957 (Ch) at [13]-[15]. In these proceedings, that is 26 April 2024.

Goodwill

25. Section 69(7) of the Act defines goodwill as a “reputation of any description”. An applicant’s claim to goodwill may be admitted or denied, or the primary respondent may put the applicant to proof. It is a requirement under Rule 3(5) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008 (“the Rules”) that the primary respondent says which allegations are admitted or denied, which allegations it can neither admit nor deny and which it requires the applicant to prove. Whether an applicant has goodwill or not is a matter that should be addressed in the form CNA2.

26. Question 1 of the form asks the primary respondent to State which of the allegations in the statement of grounds you agree with and which you deny. The primary respondent said:

The defendant agrees that the field of business in which the Applicant may have reputation and goodwill is solely limited to – and by way of admission of the representative of the Applicant – the manufacturing, supplying of industrial floor, wall and roof paints, coatings, repair materials, maintenance products, linings. All of which are considered goods and not services. All of which require manufacturing as opposed to services, which do not require manufacturing.

27. Question 2 of the form asks the primary respondent to State which of the allegations you are unable to admit or deny and which you require the applicant to prove. No comment is made regarding the applicant’s claim to goodwill under this section.

28. The first part of the primary respondent’s answer to question one is a clear acceptance of the applicant’s goodwill as claimed in its CNA1. The second part is somewhat unclear. The primary respondent disputes that the applicant has any goodwill for services, but accepts the applicant manufactures and sells its goods, both of which are services.

29. In any case, nothing turns on this because the primary respondent relies on a defence that requires its registration to predate the applicant’s goodwill, so I will go on to consider the applicant’s evidence, which is given in the witness statement of Thomas Lee Britchford, dated 17 September 2024.

30. He states that the applicant has used the term POLYCOTE since 1991, as a company name and as an unregistered trade mark. The applicant applied for the trade mark POLYCOTE on 30 June 1998 for the protection of goods in classes 2 and 19. It was registered on 14 May 1999 and lapsed due to non-renewal on 30 June 2008.

31. A second POLYCOTE trade mark was applied for on 25 August 2006, for goods in classes 2 and 19. It was registered on 14 March 2008 and stands in the name of Stephen John Britchford t/a Polycote.

32. Thomas Lee Britchford (hereafter ‘Mr Britchford’) states that the primary respondent changed the name of its company to POLYCOAT LTD on 13 October 2017, at least 24 years after the applicant’s first use of POLYCOTE as a trade mark and company name.

33. The applicant has provided revenue and marketing expenditure figures from 1995 to 2003. They are as follows:

Year	Revenue	Year	Revenue	Year	Revenue
1995	82,118	2005	1,772,944	2015	3,499,845
1996	94,990	2006	2,103,204	2016	3,963,979
1997	220,598	2007	2,173,612	2017	3,268,616
1998	389,266	2008	1,839,937	2018	2,809,409
1999	509,253	2009	1,602,735	2019	2,928,542
2000	744,427	2010	1,631,822	2020	3,197,702
2001	904,321	2011	2,240,953	2021	3,090,676
2002	1,038,162	2012	2,511,653	2022	1,965,982
2003	1,185,261	2013	2,916,276	2023	2,467,303
2004	1,666,507	2014	3,163,497

34. And:

Year	Marketing	Year	Marketing	Year	Marketing
1995	5,348	2005	339,396	2015	369,599
1996	4,614	2006	359,264	2016	454,710
1997	15,706	2007	310,286	2017	546,612
1998	54,206	2008	358,040	2018	456,904
1999	75,596	2009	273,578	2019	455,396
2000	118,474	2010	253,657	2020	296, 401
2001	114, 056	2011	375,573	2021	245,558
2002	125,940	2012	443,890	2022	331,243
2003	176,078	2013	408,084	2023	160,901
2004	294,755	2014	358,930

35. The applicant provides examples of advertising materials that include a leaflet from POLYCOTE Industrial Products, which includes the following:

We have always sold our products into the industrial and export market and also to contractors, but due to more and more enquiries/purchases from private individuals, we see the obvious need to show the general public how to save, in many cases, more than 66% of re-roofing costs! Read on!

See exhibit TBL02.

36. The leaflet provides a special offer price for ROOFEX, which closed on 30 November 1993.

37. The exhibit also includes an advertisement in Buildmart dated December 1993. It is headed POLYCOTE, with the words INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS below. It offers solutions for roofing, expansion joints, floor repairs and floor coatings.

38. Further advertisements in Buildmart are dated December 1993 and March 1994 and are headed POLYCOTE, with the words INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS below. Both advertisements offer solutions for roofing, expansion joints, floor repairs and floor coatings.

39. An advertisement in the Guardian, dated 4 December 1993, is headed ‘Roof Leaking?’ In the advertisement ‘Polycote Industrial Products’ offers a discount on a roofing product, which ended on 21 December 1993.

40. A photograph is provided that shows POLYCOTE catalogue issues 30, 41, 58, 69, 77, 92, and 101. The top catalogue has on the front cover, ‘FREE advice www.polycote.com’. POLYCOTE appears on the catalogue covers in the following forms:

41. A page from the Autumn 2000 issue of the POLYCOTE catalogue is headed: ‘News, Products & Projects’. It includes information about floor coverings and screeds, epoxy floor paint, grip flooring, waterproofing a green roof and ‘Polycote Wall Coatings’. The latter article reads: “For almost ten years, Polycote UK have specialised in supplying virtually any wall or floor coating, made to order. This has solved many problems for a wide range of customers nationwide; from shower enclosures to effluent plants, silage pits to basements.”

42. A page from Builder & Engineer October 2005 is titled ‘Property maintenance & refurbishment’. It is an article about Polycote UK’s maintenance products, including concrete floor repair, commercial floor finishes, stair tread grips, waterproof roofing compound and PVC wall and ceiling cladding. The last paragraph reads:

Polycote UK is on the move! Polycote UK’s new 12,000 sq. ft purpose-built office and warehouse facility reflects the continued growth and its commitment to future expansion.

43. The applicant provides twelve sample invoices, which Mr Britchford states are intended to show that the applicant sells its goods throughout the UK. The invoices are dated between 26 June 2006 and 18 October 2023, for amounts between £212.56 and £1347.46. The customer addresses include, inter alia, Aberdeen, Dumfries, Port Talbot, Belfast, Devon, Norwich, Manchester and Guernsey. The following trade mark is shown on each invoice:

See exhibit TBL05.

44. Mr Britchford also provided pages from the Applicant’s 2015 brochure showing its installation services. The brochure shows contractor services provided by the Polycote contracting team. Customers are advised to click on the FLOOR, WALLS or ROOF tabs to go to a site enquiry form. The services provided include the organisation of whole projects, paperwork, risk assessments and method statements. Mr Britchford states that these services were provided by Polycote between 2015 and December 2021.

See exhibit TLB07.

45. It is clear from the evidence provided that the applicant has manufactured and sold coatings, paints and repair materials for floors, walls, ceilings and roofs since at least 1993. It has also offered advice concerning those products during the same period and has offered contractor services to apply its products between 2015 and 2021. I consider that the applicant’s goodwill can fairly be described as subsisting in the terms as claimed in the CNA1, namely, “manufacturing and supplying of industrial floor, wall and roof paints, coatings, repair materials, maintenance products and linings” and find that it is attached to the name POLYCOTE.

The parties’ names

46. Section 69(1)(b) requires that the names at issue must be sufficiently similar to one another that the use in the UK or elsewhere of the contested company name would be likely to mislead members of the public by suggesting a connection between the parties. The applicant relies on POLYCOTE and POLYCOTE UK LLP. The contested name is POLYCOAT LTD.

47. The additional words UK LLP in the applicant’s second name relied on, and LTD in the contested company name are descriptive of their corporate structure and play no role in the distinctiveness of the respective company names. Consequently, the distinctive part of the primary respondent’s name is “POLYCOAT” and the distinctive part of the applicant’s name is POLYCOTE, which is the name in which its goodwill rests. I agree with the primary respondent that the names are spelled differently. However, both begin with POLY and both end with the aurally identical ‘COAT’/’ COTE’. Although the differences between the names may not be entirely overlooked, I find that they are highly similar such that use of the contested name would be likely to mislead members of the public in the UK or elsewhere that the parties are connected.

48. I note that in its CNA2 the primary respondent claims that POLYCOAT has become a generic term in the industry of chemical coatings. Evidence has been filed in support of the point, but all the exhibits that purport to show use of POLYCOAT are undated and mostly relate to companies outside the UK. The evidence does not tell me what the position is in the UK market. No exhibits show use of POLYCOTE, other than prints taken from the applicant’s website.

49. I note also that this is not a trade mark case where distinctiveness is a requirement of registration. Furthermore, despite the primary respondent’s view that ‘POLYCOAT’ is generic, the contested name does not indicate the type of services that are offered. Company names can be quite descriptive or allusive of the goods and services provided by the company registering them. In this case the allusive concept of polymer coatings is present in both names and the very small difference in spelling does not avoid the likely imperfect recollection of them.

50. The nature of the primary respondent’s business recorded on the Companies House website is Other specialised construction activities not elsewhere classified. The primary respondent states in its evidence that it, ‘specialises in the highly meticulous and specialist activity of applying and managing the installation of polyurea coatings’. The primary respondent concludes that it does not sell, advertise or market to the general public any goods-based products that purport to make it look like they sell polyurea coatings themselves or manufacture them. However, these are not important factors in the assessment of whether use of the contested name is likely to mislead the public. Although the company’s main business activities are recorded in the Register of Companies, this does not prevent companies from conducting other activities; neither are the future plans of the primary respondent constrained by its current activities. In fact, the evidence in this case shows that the applicant has offered contractor services as part of its business in the past, which is a clear illustration of the ways in which such businesses evolve. Furthermore, despite the primary respondent’s view that ‘POLYCOAT’ is generic, the contested name does not indicate the type of services that are offered. In both cases the names as wholes have an allusive meaning and it is the same meaning. Consequently, I find that the primary respondent’s name is sufficiently similar to the applicant’s name such that its use in the UK would be likely to mislead members of the public by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant.

See the witness statement of Adam Shaun Mutimer, paragraph 4.

Defences

51. The primary respondent selected the defences available under sections 69(4)(a), (d) and (e) of the Act. I shall deal with them in turn.

Section 69(4)(a): that the name was registered before the commencement of the activities on which the applicant relies to show goodwill

52. The primary respondent appears to be under the impression that it has the earlier claim since its company name registration for POLYCOAT predates the applicant’s company name registration for POLYCOTE. This is not correct. There is no requirement that an applicant before this tribunal must have a registered company name. The basis for an applicant to challenge a company name requires goodwill in a business with a name that suggests a connection between the contested name and the applicant. I have already found that part of the claim to have succeeded.

53. The primary respondent claims to have been using the contested company name POLYCOAT since its incorporation on 26 September 2016. The applicant began its business in 1993, a fact that is supported by the existence of advertising from 1993 and advertising from 2002 that talks of the applicant having traded for ‘almost ten years’. Turnover figures and marketing spend figures are provided from 1995. In addition, the applicant’s lapsed POLYCOTE trade mark was filed on 30 June 1998, while the later registration for POLYCOTE was filed on 25 August 2006. Both of these predate the primary respondent’s registration of POLYCOAT LTD by ten years or more. Whilst the trade marks are not in themselves relevant for a claim before this tribunal, they support the applicant’s wider evidence of an ongoing business under the POLYCOTE name.

54. The primary respondent has failed to show that its name was registered before the commencement of the activities relied upon by the applicant and cannot rely on this defence.

Section 69(4)(d): that the name was adopted in good faith

55. The onus is on the primary respondent to show that the contested name was adopted in good faith. Section 69(4)(d) reverses the usual persuasive and evidential burden in civil law cases where good faith will normally be presumed and bad faith must be proven by the person alleging it. Once the primary respondent establishes a prima facie case that the name was adopted in good faith, it is for the applicant to rebut it. The relevant date for assessing the defence is the date on which the name was adopted, in this case the date of incorporation, i.e. 26 September 2016.

56. The following principles in relation to good faith 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:

a) Good faith is not displayed by a failure to act in a commercially acceptable way or by certain kinds of sharp practice which fall short of outright dishonesty or by dishonesty itself: see Niru Battery at [164];

b) 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].

57. The primary respondent says the following in its CNA2:

The Defendant submits that their Company House incorporation predates that of the Applicant and that any registration of the incorporated name was done in good faith.”

58. The primary respondent also submits that the applicant’s goodwill is, ‘solely in relation to the goods that the applicant sells’ and reiterates that the primary respondent does not sell such goods and has never purported to. It concludes:

…therefore the date of incorporation of the Defendant on Companies House should be seen as separate from that of the basis on which the Applicant relies on their goodwill and reputation especially given that the Defendant registered their name on the Companies House register in 2017 as opposed to the Applicant’s filing date of 2022.”

59. I have already explained why an earlier company name registration is not determinative.

60. The remaining claims are based on the fact that the parties provide different goods and services; are based more than 100 miles apart and finally; a much repeated submission, that POLYCOAT is generic and used by many different companies.

61. The primary respondent filed a witness statement by its director, Adam Shaun Mutimer with fourteen exhibits. They include a copy of the primary respondent’s change of company name on 12 October 2017, from ADSON RENDERING LTD to POLYCOAT LTD.

Exhibit ASM02.

62. Mr Mutimer provides pages from the primary respondent’s website purporting to show the services it offers. The pages are undated. Under the heading, ‘Selection of recent projects’, it shows ‘protective coatings’, ‘roofing solutions’, ‘health & safety’, ‘vehicle coating’ and ‘specialist flooring’. It also provides services such as concrete repair and waterproofing, which are listed at the bottom of the page.

Exhibit ASM04.

63. The primary respondent suggests that the applicant’s trade marks are descriptive and should be cancelled. It also suggests that the applicant has acquiesced to its use of POLYCOAT as it has been trading for eight years.

64. On the first point, as the applicant rightly points out in its reply evidence, if the primary respondent wants to challenge the applicant’s trade mark, it should do so through the correct channel, by initiating a cancellation action before the trade mark tribunal at the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). On the acquiescence point, the second witness statement of Thomas Lee Britchford includes the following:

The Applicant became aware of the Defendant’s existence at the end of 2021. The Applicant instructed…a trade marks expertise law firm, in February 2022, to send a cease and desist letter.

Copies of the instruction and the letter are contained in exhibits TBL09 and TBL10.

65. Much is made of the nature of the respective businesses, with the primary respondent drawing distinctions between them. This is not a relevant consideration. As I have already outlined above, a company can change the actual or designated nature of its business at any time. In any case, the parties in dispute in this case both work in the field of chemical coatings. I note the primary respondent’s insistence that it only provides services and the applicant does not. However, it is clear that the applicant manufactures and sells goods, both of which are services and, furthermore, it provides technical advice about those goods and has offered installation services in the past.

66. The geographic location of the businesses is also not a relevant factor. The applicant has provided invoices to show its business operates throughout the UK.

67. The obvious omission from the primary respondent’s defence of good faith is an explanation as to why it changed its company name from ADSON RENDERING to POLYCOAT in 2017. This should have been easy to provide, since the witness is the director of POLYCOAT. In fact, the primary respondent’s case of good faith amounts to criticisms of the applicant’s trade marks and company name when it should have concentrated on its own business rationale.

68. I consider that the primary respondent has not established a prima facie case that the name was adopted in good faith, and so it may not rely on this defence.

Section 69(4)(e): that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent

69. The onus is on the primary respondent to show that it is more probable than not that the interests of the applicant are not adversely affected to any significant extent. In its CNA2 the primary respondent reiterates, under the heading, ‘please provide relevant information to support your defence’, that it does not understand how the applicant feels they do anything similar or identical to that of the services provided by the primary respondent. It concludes:

For this reason, the [primary respondent] vehemently denies that there would be an adverse effect to the day-to-day business running and operations of the [a]pplicant’s undertaking by the [primary respondent] maintaining their incorporated Companies House name.

70. It is clear from the evidence that the primary respondent’s business uses products of the type manufactured and sold by the applicant and for which the applicant provides information and technical support. The primary respondent is keen to point out that the businesses are different. The distinctions may be apparent to specialists in the industry; however, they are not significant enough to put sufficient distance between the parties to remove the risk that the interests of the applicant will be adversely affected. I also remind myself that it is through the eyes of the public that the matter is to be judged. Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, a company is at liberty to change the focus of its business at any time. The applicant has, in the past, provided installation services in respect of its goods and services and, in my view, may do so again. In any case, even if the applicant provided no services, its goods and the respondent’s services are close enough that customers may believe there is a link between the two companies such that the applicant’s goodwill and reputation may be damaged if the respondents’ services were, for example, sub-standard. This would adversely affect the applicant.

71. Therefore, there remains a real risk that the applicant’s interests are adversely affected and this defence fails.

Outcome

72. The application is successful.

73. Therefore, in accordance with section 73(1) of the Act, I make the following order:

(a) POLYCOAT LTD shall change its name within one month of the date of this order to one that is not an offending name;

(b) POLYCOAT LTD, James Rupert Blake and Adam Shaun Mutimer 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.

74. In accordance with section 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.

75. In any event, if no such change is made within one month of the date of this order, the Company Names Tribunal 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.

76. All respondents, including the co-respondents, have a legal duty under section 73(1)(b)(ii) of the Act 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.

Costs

77. The applicant has been successful and is entitled to a contribution towards its costs, in accordance with the scale published at paragraph 10.1 of the Tribunal’s practice direction. The award is as follows:

£300 for preparing a statement and considering the other side’s statement
£700 for preparing evidence
£400 for official costs (CNA1)
£300 for official costs (CNA3 x 2)

£1700 in total

78. I order POLYCOAT LTD, James Rupert Blake and Adam Shaun Mutimer, jointly and severally, to pay POLYCOTE LTD the sum of £1700. This sum is to be paid within 21 days of the period allowed for appeal or, if there is an appeal, within 21 days of the conclusion of the appeal proceedings (subject to any order of the appellate tribunal).

Appeal

79. Under section 74(1) of the Act, an appeal can only be made in relation to the decision to uphold the application. There is no separate right of appeal in relation to costs.

80. 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.

81. The Tribunal must be advised if an appeal is lodged so that implementation of the order is suspended.

Dated 7 November 2025

Al Skilton
Company Names Adjudicator