* Company Names Tribunal Decision DECISION ON INTEL MINING SOLUTIONS LTD Updated 24 October 2018 © Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government

Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National

Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright

holders concerned. This publication is available at

11236032. By an application filed on 14 June 2018, Intel Corporation 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 22 June 2018, in accordance with rule 3(2) of the Company Names Adjudicator Rules 2008. The copy of

the application was sent by Royal Mail ‘signed for’ post. It was returned “address incomplete”. A copy of the application was then sent by ordinary post. It was returned “address

inaccessible”. On 3 August 2018, the parties were advised that no defence had been received to the application and so 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. 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) INTEL MINING SOLUTIONS 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) INTEL MINING SOLUTIONS

LTD shall: (i) take such steps as are within its power to make, or facilitate the making, of that change; (ii) not to 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. Intel Corporation, having been successful, is entitled to a contribution towards its costs. I order INTEL MINING SOLUTIONS LTD

to pay Intel Corporation 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 11 September 2018 Judi Pike Company Names Adjudicator * 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. ↩ Back to top