* Company Names Tribunal Decision DECISION ON INTEL PRINT LTD Updated 5 December 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 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-names-tribunal-decision-intel-print-ltd/decision-on-intel-print-ltd ORDER UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 In

Act). A copy of this application was sent to the primary respondent’s registered office on 25 July 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. On 20 September 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 PRINT 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 PRINT 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 PRINT 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 12 October 2018. Christopher Bowen 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