The Icon Bar: General: Acorn Computers Ltd (2006) dissolved
| |
Acorn Computers Ltd (2006) dissolved |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #115939, posted by trevj at 09:40, 29/11/2010, in reply to message #115936 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
This is interesting but I still maintain (despite assertions from Duport etc. [1], [2]) that Chapter 3 of the Companies Act 2006 would not prohibit the incorporation of a company named "Acorn Computers Ltd." (IANAL etc.) |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Hodgson |
Message #115940, posted by Andy_Hodgson at 10:14, 29/11/2010, in reply to message #115939 |
Member
Posts: 65
|
This is interesting but I still maintain (despite assertions from Duport etc. [1], [2]) that Chapter 3 of the Companies Act 2006 would not prohibit the incorporation of a company named "Acorn Computers Ltd." (IANAL etc.) TBH, i'm not 100% sure on this, however if you try and put Acorn Computers into any of the company formation sites, they all come back as the name can not be used. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #115942, posted by trevj at 12:13, 29/11/2010, in reply to message #115940 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
...however if you try and put Acorn Computers into any of the company formation sites, they all come back as the name can not be used. I'd say this is because such sites err on the side of caution. If you use a formation agent, they wouldn't want to end up resubmitting applications for (fixed fee) work, in the event of a company name being refused.- I reckon that submitting a paper application direct to Companies House wouldn't have the same response - and if it did, could be legitimately challenged.
- AIUI, an existing company could also submit a paper form (or electronic?) for a change of name to ACL if the director(s) resolved to do so.
In either case, I guess there could be a legitimate challenge by a company owning an Acorn Computers trademark... unless the ACL company could be shown to be actively trading under their name, i.e. not engaging in the historic equivalent of cyber-squatting.
...And while I think of it, why are so many company names approved with the suffix "ltd" when the legislation clearly states "ltd." (with the "." inside the quotes)? (And also, what about the lower case "l" - should this be strictly adhered to in theory?) Unless I'm missing something (like a change in legislation or a precedent being set in a legal case) this is evidence of the vast majority of formation agents neither knowing nor caring about the ins and outs of what they're doing!
In fact, maybe I'll set up a sideline in company formation... does anyone want to buy the name "Acorn Computers Ltd./ltd./ltd/Limited/limited/limtied" (perhaps they won't even notice typos)? I'd normally charge £50 (excluding the CH registration fee) but for anyone ordering before 1 Dec, this will be reduced to just £25.  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #115948, posted by filecore at 17:04, 29/11/2010, in reply to message #115942 |
Posts: 3867
|
...And while I think of it, why are so many company names approved with the suffix "ltd" when the legislation clearly states "ltd." (with the "." inside the quotes)? (And also, what about the lower case "l" - should this be strictly adhered to in theory?) Unless I'm missing something Are you sure about this? There is often provision for legitimate variance (an uppercase being written in lowercase, etc) because the point is that it's similarity in names which causes the problems, not a literally identical name. Thus, if you founded "goOgle inc" you would clash with "Google Inc", regardless of the capitalisation, due to the similarity of the names - just as you would if you tried to register "Gooogle", "Gogle", and so on. I refer you to Apple's overzealous legal pursuit of anything prefixed with an 'i' or using the word 'pod' (including the Australian poo-burying hikers' trowel, the iPood). I would also imagine that punctuation variations fall into this proviso, and things like "inc", "ltd" et al because they are, after all, abbreviations and their expanded form will be the same in either case. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Trevor Johnson |
Message #115949, posted by trevj at 19:33, 29/11/2010, in reply to message #115948 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Are you sure about this? TBH, no.There is often provision for legitimate variance (an uppercase being written in lowercase, etc) because the point is that it's similarity in names which causes the problems, not a literally identical name... Makes sense. Could be in an earlier clause under definitions, interpretation, etc.Thus, if you founded "goOgle inc" you would clash with "Google Inc", regardless of the capitalisation, due to the similarity of the names - just as you would if you tried to register "Gooogle", "Gogle", and so on. I refer you to Apple's overzealous legal pursuit of anything prefixed with an 'i' or using the word 'pod' (including the Australian poo-burying hikers' trowel, the iPood). This iPood is arguably more interesting than discussing the Companies Act itself!I would also imagine that punctuation variations fall into this proviso, and things like "inc", "ltd" et al because they are, after all, abbreviations and their expanded form will be the same in either case. OK, I follow that. I'm still curious about the explicit use of full stops, though - unless this is also covered in an earlier clause. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #115950, posted by VincceH at 20:10, 29/11/2010, in reply to message #115949 |
 Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
I refer you to Apple's overzealous legal pursuit of anything prefixed with an 'i' or using the word 'pod' (including the Australian poo-burying hikers' trowel, the iPood). This iPood is arguably more interesting than discussing the Companies Act itself!
http://www.reghardware.com/2010/07/22/ipood/
I would also imagine that punctuation variations fall into this proviso, and things like "inc", "ltd" et al because they are, after all, abbreviations and their expanded form will be the same in either case. OK, I follow that. I'm still curious about the explicit use of full stops, though - unless this is also covered in an earlier clause.
I find the whole thing somewhat odd. I've never been involved in company registrations, only ever dealing with companies that already exist, but for most of my working life I've seen "Limited" and "Ltd" as the same - the latter being the short form of the former.
i.e. I've always assumed that if I see a company name ending in Ltd, then the full company name is [whatever] Limited, but they've used the short form of that on whatever it is on which I've seen then name. Similarly, whenever I write a company name, I'm inclined to shorten the Limited part to Ltd because I'm lazy.
It's only relatively recently I've found out that was wrong - a few short years ago when there was some cock up or other with John Cartmel's company, whereby it was registered as one of the two instead of the other. Or something. I can't remember the details, but there was something along those lines.
(I still tend to abbreviate Limited to Ltd, though, because I'm still lazy).
It appears to be similar with the full stop, given that if you use Companies House's WebCHeck*, you'll find an "Acorn Computer Solutions Ltd." (complete with full stop) that was incorporated 23/7/2008 and dissolved 26/3/2010, along with an "Acorn Computer Solutions Ltd" (sans full stop) incorporated 18/5/2010. They both have the same registered address, so presumably one replaced the other.
* Their strange capitalisation. I think it's an attempt at being clever, what with their initials being CH. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #115951, posted by filecore at 20:12, 29/11/2010, in reply to message #115949 |
Posts: 3867
|
This iPood is arguably more interesting than discussing the Companies Act itself! This, for example. Curiously enough though, I didn't hear about the iPood online - I first saw one on sale in the outdoor equipment section of a local hypermarket! Gawd bless Apple for their lack of a sense of humour. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (6): |< <
6
|
The Icon Bar: General: Acorn Computers Ltd (2006) dissolved |
|
