Companies House incorporation service

Companies House incorporation service

Didn't find your answer?

I have been trying to register some new companies , but am gettig a lot of knock backs from CH inc service on the grounds that my proposed names are too similar to existing companies. I do not seem to have the same problems when using a 3rd party agent , so is that the work around ? Surely 3rd party agents have to get their potential names cleared , are they checked against CH records in a different way? Nick

Replies (14)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Stepurhan
By stepurhan
10th Mar 2014 14:56

Examples?

It might help to get an idea of what sort of names Companies House are knocking back, and what sort of names they haven't knocked back in the past. Appreciate that might be considered commercially sensitive information though.

You might just have been unlucky this one time. (i.e. not 3rd party agents have some secret technique but you have hit on an unfortunate block of names on this ocassion) Presumably you have checked the list yourself before even choosing names, so can you see what similar names CH are using as basis for objection? Have Companies House themselves said what names are considered too similar? Long shot, but have you tried asking them what amendment would be acceptable to them?

I've not had anything turned back, so I can't give you any practical experience of resolving the issue I'm afraid.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bernard michael
10th Mar 2014 15:10

I always ask Cos House first before choosing a co name. That way no problems

Thanks (1)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
10th Mar 2014 15:13

CH and names

The rules have become unnecessarlity complex.

There are reasons why people use formation agents.

I declare my interest as a company formation agent.

Thanks (1)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
10th Mar 2014 15:17

Agents veto names?

Are you saying that formation agents, familiar with the rules, will veto names up-front? If not, do you have a way of getting past the "similar names" objection? Not expecting you to reveal a business secret, just interested in principle whether that is possible.

Thanks (1)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
10th Mar 2014 15:20

CoHo Guidance

Have a look at GP1 Chapter 6, particularly section 4.  Some words - UK, International, Services - are completely ignored, as is "The" at the beginning, which may seem reasonable, but more surprisingly, an "s" at the end of a word and all spaces and punctuation are also ignored as a means of distinguishing one company name from another.  Section 5 gives words considered to be the same - particularly, "and" and "&".

To expand the example given in the guidance, you would not expect "Hands" to be regarded as the same as "H & D Services".

Thanks (1)
avatar
By andy.partridge
10th Mar 2014 15:23

Sensitive names

I have had two recently - one had the word 'bank' (more river bank than High Street bank) in it which was dismissed out of hand because obviously innocent members of the public would mistakenly deposit money with them!

The other was 'architect' which is protected and its use requires written permission from the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Presumably 'Accountant' has no such restrictions. Oh how far we have fallen.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carnmores
10th Mar 2014 16:01

heres a typical example

trying to register CELEBRITY SERVICES LTD refused as follows

The name you have chosen is considered to be the ‘same as’ the existing name(s) shown below. Please read the Notes for more information and choose an alternative name.

CELEBRITY LTD

 

surely this is not correct

Thanks (0)
By Happy Up North Accountant
10th Mar 2014 16:02

Add (UK) etc

I've had it loads of times in the past where I literally only have to add (UK) or any sort of (<insert geographical location here>) and it's been accepted without contest.

I honestly can't comment on formations agents as I use the companies house direct service - in my experience it pre-warns you of any potential rejections based on the name of the company so you can amend before you submit the application.

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
10th Mar 2014 16:25

Odd rejection

That does seem an odd rejection, especially since there is a vast array of other Celebrity xxxxx Limited names registered. Not even a past name of that company, and the closest match on the register (Celebrity Service Limited) was struck off in 2009.

A case of computer says no? Have you tried ringing CH to ask why your name is rejected when all the other Celebrity names must have passed through somehow?

Thanks (1)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
10th Mar 2014 16:37

.

@carnmores, "services" would be ignored, so it is logically the same, even though it is not.

Changing it to the dreaded "solutions" assuming its not taken might be a go-er.

A (location) works a treat.

So you could have Celebrity Services (London) Ltd for example. 

Then you drop the (location) part for all bar the most official of documents.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carnmores
10th Mar 2014 16:54

Thanks Really

solutions works a treat and i could add london as you say . not sure i get the logic for ignoring the use of services seems barmy to me

Thanks (0)
avatar
By taxhound
10th Mar 2014 18:37

similarities

About 10 years ago, someone geographically close to my client did register a company with a very similar name, carrying on a very similar and quite specialist trade.  The only difference was the addition of one word, and the name of the company did tell you what the company did pretty much, but it was quite a clever name.  (ie not just plumbers limited)  Companies House dismissed our complaint that the other company's name was too similar out of hand, which left me wondering when they WOULD consider that a name was too similar...

Thanks (0)
Big Daddy's Diner
By mookgirluk
11th Mar 2014 09:08

Same As and Sensitive

There are two different reasons for Companies House rejecting a name in this thread.

Firstly the 'same as' rule.  Companies House have a list of words that they disregard when checking a company name.  This list includes 'company', 'services' and 'international'.  Therefore the proposed name Party Services Limited would be classed as identical to The Party Company Limited.

There are some sneaky ways around this, for instance using brackets around the offending word.  So Party (Services) Limited would fool the system and allow you to proceed.

 

Next are words that are classed as 'sensitive'.  These words are not banned but do require the applicant to justify their use.  The example give of architect does require the applicant to supply a letter from the Architects Registration Board confirming they have no objection to the company name.

 

I agree with Flying Scotsman that Formation Agents deal with these complexities on a daily basis, which is why they are best placed to spot any potential issues and advise their customers accordingly.

Thanks (0)
Jennifer Adams
By Jennifer Adams
11th Mar 2014 14:04

You might be interested in reading this article....

... it goes into why you should be careful in the name you choose.

Whats in a Name? Get the details right.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/what-s-name-get-details-right/53...

It includes a checklist of suggested websites where you can check for similar names.

Yes.. I know BusinessLink is sadly no more (I am updating such articles as we speak by the way!) but here is the replacement link to the relevant section of the IOP website.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/tmtext.htm

And here's the new link to the relevant page on Jordans' website

http://www.jordans.co.uk/

Also...as the article states:

We are used to thinking that the Companies Act 2006 refers only to companies, but s1192 Companies Act 2006 covers all types of business: sole traders, partnerships, LLPs, companies - you name it… In fact, the CA06 clauses apply to anyone trading under a name which is not their real name.

I once knew of an accountants whose name included the word 'Easy' - they received a letter from the solicitors acting for the easyGroup (you know... Sir Stelios). It was too much in legal fees for the accountants to challenge so they had to change their name. But if you do a search online it would appear that apparently other businesses have defended the claim - and won.

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)