another company with a similar name

another company with a similar name

Didn't find your answer?

We are a well known company locally who are represented on all local business groups, networks etc. and advertise in all the usual places.

I have now heard that our area's territory has been brought by a someone form a national franchise and they are openign up. They have virtually the same name as us but will suffix it with a number.

I know that technically we will have non identical names for companies house purposes but in reality the person on the street is goign to think we are one and the same.

I do not want them piggy backing on our good name or even worse damaging it when people think they are us.

Any suggestions?
Anon

Replies (10)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By AnonymousUser
13th Dec 2007 15:53

Not a companies House Issue
This is not going to be sorted out by Companies House ... if the name was too similar they would have blocked it to start with. A solicitors letter is what is needed. If the franchise is trading near you, in the same trade, and the public are likely to be confused then you will probably force them to change it.

A Client recently registered a name at CH which was nothing like anything else lets say .. Holiday Clinic (Swindon) Ltd ... they were forced to change because another company in Swindon ... Swindon Travellers Clinic Ltd argued successfully that the public would confuse the two despite the names being totally dissimilar. The names, towns and trades have been changed but you get the point ... its not just the exact name that can be challenged.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th Dec 2007 14:32

?
So do you think there is any way of stopping them trading? I just know that a lot of people will go to yellow pages and be confused and call them instead of us and all our hardwork is down the drain. They already have the same franchise in an area far enough away not to bother me but near enough for me to hear about and their reputation (it is the same franchisee)is not good.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
13th Dec 2007 14:33

Passing off
you should send a cease and desist letter for starters - not quite sure what you mean by our areas territory , are you confined to an area by design or contract

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
13th Dec 2007 14:42

Write to Companies House
Have a look at the Companies House booklet GBF2 Chapter 5 and write a letter to the address given in 5.3 to ask Companies House to issue a direction to the other company to change its name.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th Dec 2007 14:54

We tried approaching Companies House once
A few years ago, my client, XYZ Ltd became aware of another company called XYZ (name of town) Ltd doing exactly the same quite specialised thing just 15 miles away (and the name of the company explained the client's business). They were also trading under the name without the name of the town in it. We complained to Companies House. Result - the names were apparently not similar enough, so I have no idea what Companies House consider to be similar enough to warrant changing.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
13th Dec 2007 15:15

Don't worry
There have been several accountancy or tax franchise companies in the past and they all gone to wall. I dare say it will happen again. An accountant who takes on an accountancy franchise must have very little faith in their own ability to set up a new busines. Why pay £000's to start a business when you only need a few hundred to start up. Clearly a waste of resources. A franchise might be suitable for fast food or other areas where there are low margins and vast turnovers. But accountancy no. It shows a lack of experience in the person running the business and that we become known eventually. Its like Lloyds Bank doing cheap Tax Returns they will go the same way as Midland Bank Trust did years ago. Lost business because of poor quality service.

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
13th Dec 2007 15:23

Companies House
EL

In our case, our client was AB Limited and the new company was AB (UK) Limited, which was 100 miles away. AB is fairly descriptive of the business activity, which was the same for both companies. Companies House issued a direction to the new company and they changed the name to something completely different.

There should be no problem for Anon trading as XYZ Ltd. in getting Companies House to force XYZ 57 Ltd. to change its name.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th Dec 2007 15:32

thanks
To make it clearer, the franchise is split nationally into territories. The area that we trade in has never had anyone from this franchise in it. the nearerst person is in the next territory which is far enough away. However, that same person is now buying the rights to the territory where our office and client base is located.

I will contact companies house and see what I can do.

If not it may be easier to change our name.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By stephenkendrew
13th Dec 2007 17:10

Complain to Companies House
A recent ( within the last 2 months) experience means I would adopt Euan's rather than Steven's approach.

One client already had a company called, say, "Smith's Builders Limited". Last year we formed another company for the same client called "Smith's Construction Limited".

We had no problems at the incorporation stage. Now, however, after almost a year, the client received a letter requiring the company (Construction) to change its name under section 28(2) Companies Act 1985 since it was too similar to an existing company - even though both companies have the same directors!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By geoffemtacs
14th Dec 2007 08:47

Passing Off
This is tricky and you might find that pushing it isn't productive. As I understand it, there is a nationally operated franchise company called Ted's Toners Ltd (or whatever) but they never had a franchise operating in your area. Your business is Ted's Toners Basingstoke Ltd. Now they are moving into your area and want to relabel themselves Ted's No 1 Toners.

The 'owner' of the Ted's Toners name is the person who used it first, regardless of area (I think). So whoever started to use the name first, should be able to get the other to change names and if that's the national chain then they could get you to change your name rather than the other way round. You could be accused of 'passing off' because they had been using the name (albeit somewhere else).

So who came first?

Thanks (0)