Decision

Decision on Rolex Inn Ltd

Published 25 June 2025

Order under the Companies Act 2006

In the matter of application No. 5255

For a change of company name of registration No. 15678869

Decision

The company name ROLEX INN LTD has been registered since 25 April 2024 under number 15678869.

By an application filed on 9 January 2025, ROLEX SA 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 27 January 2025, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of the application was sent by Royal Mail “Special Delivery” service and by standard mail.

On 18 February 2025, Companies House register recorded the company had changed its name from ROLEX INN LTD to ROLLXINN LTD.

On 3 April 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and noted that ROLEX INN LTD had changed its name to ROLLXINN LTD and that it was the adjudicator’s preliminary view that the new name did not appear to be an offending name, and as such, the application therefore appeared to be without object and the tribunal was minded to close the case. The parties were granted a period of two weeks in which to state whether they agreed to the closing of the case or to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished.  

On 15 April 2025, the applicant contacted the Tribunal by telephone, and notified that it had received the respondent’s letter from the Tribunal dated 3 April 2025 in error, and that it maintained it’s objection to the new company name. On 16 April 2025, the letters dated 3 April 2025 were re-issued and it was noted that ROLEX INN LTD had changed its name to ROLLXINN LTD and that it was the adjudicator’s preliminary view that the new name did not appear to be an offending name, and as such, the application therefore appeared to be without object and the tribunal was minded to close the case. The parties were granted a period of two weeks in which to state whether they agreed to the closing of the case or to request a hearing in relation to this matter, if they so wished. In response, in an email dated 28 April 2025, the applicant referred to its previous email and confirmed that it maintained its objection to the new company name and requested the tribunal proceed with the case. No reply was received from the primary respondent. No request for a hearing was made. The adjudicator considered the applicants continuing objection and decided the proceedings should continue.

On 22 May 2025, the parties were advised that further to the respondent’s change of company name from ROLEX INN LTD to ROLLXINN LTD and the applicants continuing objection to the new name, as no defence had been received to the application 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 parties were advised that if no hearing was requested within this term, the adjudicator would consider making an order. 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) ROLLXINN 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) ROLLXINN LTD 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.

ROLEX SA having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order ROLLXINN LTD, to pay ROLEX SA 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 24 June 2025

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. ↩