Decision

Decision on SWXLDN Limited

Published 3 June 2025

Companies Act 2006                                                                           

In the matter of application no. 5139 by SECUREWORKS CORP. for a change to the company name of SECUREWORKS LONDON LTD, company registration no. 15353199

1. Company no. 15353199 (“the primary respondent”) was incorporated on 15 December 2023 with the name SECUREWORKS LONDON LTD.

2. On 16 October 2024, SECUREWORKS CORP. (“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”) (“Form CNA 1”). The applicant stated that it had informed the primary respondent by letter dated 6 August 2024 that it would instigate legal proceedings if the primary respondent did not change its name.

3. The text of the letter is as follows:

We act on behalf of Secureworks Corp in respect of their brand protection matters in the United Kingdom (UK).

Our client has become aware of the incorporation of your company numbered 15353199 which, as of 15 December 2023, has been registered under the name ‘Secureworks London Ltd’ (Offending Name).

You may be aware of our client, given the proximity of the goods and services for which your company has been registered and our client’s offering. However, for the purpose of record, our client is a reputable cybersecurity company that has been trading under ‘SECUREWORKS’ (Sign) since 2000. We enclose a schedule of registered UK trade marks held by or on behalf of our client incorporating the Sign, which has become synonymous with our client and its business. More details of our client’s business can be found at https://www.secureworks.com/.

Our client has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, considerable commercial success and has a substantial customer base, as a result of their significant investment in advertising and marketing. Our client has built up significant goodwill and has a substantial reputation in the UK in connection with the Sign.

Our client’s objection

Our client is concerned that the Offending Name is substantially similar to the Sign. Overall, the Offending Name contains the Sign. The fact that the Offending Name contains the element ‘London’ is insufficient to distinguish the Offending Name from the Sign in the mind of consumers.

Under section 69(1)(b) of the Companies Act 2006, our client may object to the registration of your company under the Offending Name on the ground that it is sufficiently similar to a name associated with our client in which our client has goodwill (being the Sign), such that its use in the UK would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between your company and our client.

Were you to commence or continue the use of the Offending name, it is likely to mislead consumers into believing that there is a connection (including by affiliation, membership or endorsement) between your company and our client. This risk is heightened given the highly similar (and complementary) nature of each business offering.

Action required

Our client takes the issue of protecting its intellectual property very seriously, and will take necessary steps in order to preserve its rights. Our client requires you (as sole director of Secureworks London Ltd) to take the following actions to resolve this matter:

1. by 12 noon on 13 August 2024, confirm safe receipt of this letter by email to [email address];

2. by 12 noon on 20 August 2024, provide signed undertakings that:
a. by 5pm on 27 August 2024, you (as director) will take all steps necessary to change the company name to a name which is not identical or similar to, nor contain or resemble SECUREWORKS, and provide us with proof of the same;
b. the company and director will not now or in future do, encourage, enable, assist or permit any activities which would result in company number 15353199 or any other company being or becoming registered under the Offending Name or any other name which is identical or similar to, or contains or resembles, SECUREWORKS; and
c. the company has not, and will not, commence the use of the Offending Name in the course of trade; and

3. complies with the undertakings thereafter.

Our client is sufficiently concerned by the registration of your company under the Offending Name that, should you (and the company) decline to provide and comply with the requested undertaking, our client will consider filing an action to object to the registration of your company under the Offending Name.

We look forward to hearing from your promptly and, in any event, before the deadline stipulated above.

In the meantime, our client reserves all of its rights in this matter.”

4. The applicant indicated that it would be seeking an award of costs.

5. A copy of the application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 28 November 2024, in accordance with Rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. On the same day, the Tribunal wrote to Emily Charlotte Walters to inform her that the applicant had requested that she be joined to the proceedings because of her position in the company as director.

6. On 13 January 2025, the primary respondent filed a request for an extension of time until 15 February 2025 to file a defence. It noted that the Form CNA 1 had been served on the primary respondent’s accountant and had been forwarded on to the primary respondent in December during a period of annual leave. On 5 February 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the primary respondent granting the requested extension.

7. On 6 February 2025, the primary respondent filed a Companies House form “Notice of Change of Name by Resolution” (NM01), a legal requirement for companies wishing to change their name. The name was changed to SWXLDN LIMITED. The same day, it informed the Tribunal and the applicant that it had done this.

8. On 24 February 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties informing them of the change to a name that it considered not to be an offending name. It said that it was minded to close the case, as the application appeared to be without object, and also issued a preliminary view to award the sum of £800 to the applicant in respect of costs. The parties were given a deadline of 10 March 2025 to request a hearing, should either disagree with the preliminary view.

9. On the same day, the Tribunal wrote to Emily Charlotte Walters informing her that the Adjudicator had decided that she should be joined to the proceedings as co-respondent and be jointly and severally liable with the primary respondent for the costs in the proceedings. A period of 14 days from the letter, i.e. until 10 March 2025, was allowed for Ms Walters to request a hearing, in the event that she disputed this decision.

10. On 7 March 2025, the primary respondent filed a request for a hearing (Form CNA 4). On 28 March 2025, the Tribunal appointed a costs hearing for 24 April 2025 and the parties were informed accordingly.

11. On 11 April 2025, the applicant confirmed that it would not be attending the hearing or making any written submissions in lieu of attendance.

12. The hearing took place by telephone. The primary respondent and co-respondent were represented by Anis Bouzelmate. He explained that the respondent was a small family company based in Croydon and said he could not understand how anybody could confuse it with a large global company such as the applicant. Ms Walters had replied by email to the applicant’s letter on 13 August 2024. It was the view of the respondent and primary respondent that they were in talks with the applicant, following the letter, and they were expecting a response from the applicant. However, the next thing that happened was that the primary respondent was served with the Form CNA 1 by the Tribunal. As the primary respondent was a small company, it took the decision not to contest the application and to change its name voluntarily. Mr Bouzelmate was at pains to stress that this decision was not prompted by a belief that the primary respondent had done anything wrong, but rather a reluctance to accept the financial risk of legal proceedings.

13. Mr Bouzelmate said that he was able to send over a copy of the email from Ms Walters. This was done on 2 May 2025. It reads as follows:

Thank you for your letter dated 6th August 2024, addressed to Secureworks London Ltd. Please consider this email as formal acknowledgement of receipt.

Upon reviewing the information provided, I have researched the company you represent, ‘Secureworks Europe’, as registered on Companies House. As I understand it, Secureworks Europe specialises in cybersecurity and is a subsidiary of Dell Technologies. In contrast, Secureworks London Ltd is a small business operating primarily in the outer suburbs of London, with a focus on intruder detection services such as CCTV and intruder alarms. These services are distinctly different from those offered by Secureworks Europe.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the trademark classifications relevant to our businesses differ significantly: Secureworks London Ltd.’s services would fall under Classes 37 and 45, while Secureworks Europe’s services are classified under Classes 9, 41 and 42. We do not, nor have we ever had, any dealings or interest in cybersecurity. Therefore, I find it difficult to comprehend how there could be any confusion between our two companies.

Additionally, our company logo is markedly different from that of Secureworks Europe. If I am mistaken, please correct me, but it appears that the sole issue at hand is whether the inclusion of ‘London’ in our company name is, in your opinion, insufficient to distinguish the two businesses in the minds of consumers. To clarify this matter, I am prepared to conduct a public poll to assess the potential for confusion and share the results with you.

Finally, I kindly request that you provide any specific instances or experiences where customers have reported confusion between our two companies.

14.The applicant’s legal representative sent an acknowledgement of receipt on 21 August 2024 and said “We … shall be in touch upon receipt of our client’s instructions.”

Decision

15. Rule 11 of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008 states that:

The adjudicator may, at any stage in the proceedings before him under the Act, award to any party by order such costs (in Scotland, expenses) as he considers reasonable, and direct how and by what parties they are to be paid.

16. Costs in cases before the Company Names Tribunal are usually awarded on a contributory basis. For parties with legal representation, the adjudicator will usually follow the scale set out in section 10.1 of the Company Names Tribunal practice direction (“the practice direction”). For the purposes of the present proceedings, the relevant parts of that scale are as follows:

Preparing a statement and considering the other side’s statement	From £300 to £500 depending on the nature of the statements
Expenses	Official fees arising from the action that have been paid by the successful party (other than fees for extensions of time).

17. Section 10.3.1 of the practice direction states that requests for costs in cases where there has been a voluntary change of name will be considered on the facts of the individual cases.

18. Section 9.2.3 of the practice direction says:

If the company has voluntarily changed its name after the application has been filed and it had notice that an application would be made, an award of costs could still be made against the newly named company as it remains the same legal entity as the originally named company. Any award of costs would be dependent upon the applicant seeking an award of costs and satisfying the tribunal that the respondent had received sufficient notice that the application would be made (see 10.4). Requests for costs in such cases will be considered on the facts of the individual cases.

19. The applicant did initiate pre-action contact with the primary respondent in its letter of 6 August 2024. It gave the respondent 7 days in which to acknowledge receipt of the letter and 14 days in which to provide the requested signed undertakings. There was a period of just under two months between this second deadline and the filing of the Form CNA 1.

20. In response to a question from me, Mr Bouzelmate confirmed that it was the understanding of the primary respondent that the parties were in discussions. It is important to note at this point that I have no reason to doubt that the primary respondent and co-respondent believed this to be the position.

21. That said, I do not consider that the correspondence indicates that parties were actually engaged in discussions. The applicant’s letter of 6 August 2024 gave warning that, should the requested undertakings not be provided, it will consider filing an action at the Company Names Tribunal. Ms Walters’ email of 13 August 2024 which I have reproduced above acknowledges receipt of the letter, but it was not followed by the requested undertakings. The email presents the primary respondent’s reasons for considering that there would be no confusion between the two names, offers to conduct a public poll to assess the potential for confusion, and asks the applicant to provide any instances of actual confusion. In my view, this email reads as a defence against the threat of the application.

22. The applicant incurred costs in completing and filing the Form CNA 1. In my view, the period of three and a half months between the applicant’s notification of its intentions and the serving of the Form CNA 1 on 28 November 2024 constitutes reasonable notice. Notwithstanding Mr Bouzelmate’s points about the financial imbalance between the parties, the applicant is entitled to a contribution towards its costs.

23. I do have some sympathy with the respondent’s submission that it was expecting to hear from the applicant’s legal representative itself. As I have already noted in paragraph 14 above, the email of 21 August 2024 said “We … shall be in touch upon receipt of our client’s instructions.” For this reason, I consider that it is reasonable to reduce the award to the minimum amount payable on the standard scale, i.e. £300 as a contribution towards the cost of preparing the Form CNA 1 and the £400 fee for filing it. The total award of costs is therefore £700.

24. I therefore order SWXLDN LIMITED and Emily Charlotte Walters, jointly and severally, to pay Secureworks Corp. costs in the sum of £700 on the basis indicated above, and for such costs to be paid within 14 days from the date of this decision.

25. Section 74(1) of The Companies Act 2006 provides for an appeal to the court “from any decision of a company names adjudicator to uphold or dismiss an application under section 69”. The present decision is not such a decision. There is no right of appeal in respect of this costs order.

Dated 28 May 2025

Clare Boucher
Company Names Adjudicator