NAMING COMPANIES

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 226, 24 September 1934, Page 9

NAMING COMPANIES

PROBLEM OF PROHIBITIONS. REGISTRAR'S EXPLANATION. Mr. «T. Murray, Registrar of Companies, explained to a meeting of accountants in Wellington that his office was presented with some difficult tasks occasion, ally in conncction with the naming of companies. He said that a provision of the new Act in regard to similarity of names applied not only to existing companies in New Zealand but to overseas companies which carried on business here and to other corporate bodies registered in the Dominion under any Act. The purpose, of course, was to avoid confusion. Provision was made for the consent of an existing company or corporate body to the registration of a certain name (which otherwise might not be allowed) for a new company, but even then the registrar's responsibilities were not ended. He must not register the name unless he was satisfied that this course would not be contrary to the public interest. The use of certain words in the names of companies was not allowed except with the consent of the GovernorGeneral in Council or by Act of Parliament. Such words were: —"Royal," "National," "State," or any other word calculated to suggest Royal patronage of the Governor-General or any connection with the Government. The prohibition applied also to the words "Municipal," "Chartered," or any other word suggesting connection with a local authority or body incorporated by Royal Charter. Finally, it was provided that, except with the consent of the Court, a company could not be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the registrar, was contrary to public policy. Mr. Murray remarked that after the formation of the National Timber Company some years ago a new company sought registration as the National Timber and Hardware Company. This application was refused, but the company was advised that it could be granted the name of the National Hardware and Timber Company, and this was accordingly done. Eventually an order which was really intended for the National Timber Company was mistakenly addressed to the National Hardware and Timber Company. The sequel was an action in the Supreme Court by the National Timber Company to ensure a non-confusing alteration of the other company's name. The Court held, however, that nobody with any sense could be confused. Not satisfied with this judgment, the National Timber Company carried the case to the Court of Appeal, which ordered the other company to alter its name. The higher Court held that it ftwas not a case whether anybodv of'sense would not he confused. The fact was that somebody had been confused, and the original company must be protected against such possibilities of confusion. Another interesting case was quoted to show that an incorporated company was entitled to receive thc_ same protection for an established nickname as for its authorised statutory name.