World Book Company Pvt. Ltd. v. World Book India Pvt. Ltd.:

 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner against order dated 22^nd March, 2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal’). By the impugned order, learned Tribunal refused to invoke jurisdiction under Section 7(7) read with Sections 446, 447, 448, 449 and 450 of the Companies Act, 2013 and dismissed the petition with cost.

The appellant filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 7(7) read with Sections 446, 447, 448, 449 and 450 of the Companies Act, 2013 for directions to remove the 1^st Respondent's name i.e. World Book India Pvt. Ltd.’ from the register of companies and to impose costs and to prosecute the 1^st Respondent company and his directors for giving false statement and false evidence and also for other reliefs.

It appears that the appellant has not complied with the request of one World Book Inc. a foreign Company. Therefore, the said Company filed a Trade Mark Infringement Suit in May, 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. An interim order was passed therein by the Hon'ble High Court on 27^th May, 2013, which reads as under:

• As regards the defendants, it is averred that the defendant is a company by the name ‘World Book Company Private Limited’, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be engaged in the overlapping business of publication and publishing books, etc. The plaintiffs claim that in the first week of September, 2012, they discovered that the defendant had registered a company in the name of ‘World Book Company Private Limited’ that contains the dominant and distinctive element of the plaintiffs' trademark/trade name “WORLD BOOK”.
• The plaintiffs further discovered that the defendant had also registered the domain name “worldbookcompany.in” by hosting the website, which is stated to be deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the plaintiffs' domain name “worldbook.com”. Immediately thereafter, on 12.9.2012, the plaintiffs claim to have sent a cease and desist notice to the defendant calling upon it not to use its registered trademark/trade name “WORLD BOOK” as part of their corporate name. However, the said notice was not replied to by the defendant.
• It is averred by the plaintiffs that by using the plaintiff's’ proprietary trademark/trade name “WORLD BOOK” and by adopting the trademark “WORLD BOOK” as part of its corporate name, the defendant has committed an infringement of the registered trademark of the plaintiffs. The aforesaid act of the defendant is stated to have resulted in deceiving the members of the trade and public at large into believing that the offending products/services sold and offered for sale by the defendant have some connection with the plaintiffs, whereas in fact, no such connection exists. Further. the defendant being in the same trade of publication of books, etc., as the plaintiffs', it is averred that the public is likely to be attracted towards the defendant's products sold under the impugned trade name and they would be inclined to purchase the same under a mistaken belief and impression that they are buying the merchandise of the plaintiffs and/or their licensees. The manner in which the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury on account of the aforesaid acts of the defendant, has been detailed in para 26 of the plaint.
• Having regard to the averments made in the plaint and upon perusing the documents placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs are entitled to grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction in their favour. Accordingly, till further orders, the defendant, its directors, officers, agents, servants, representatives, assigns, etc. are restrained from using the trademark “WORLD BOOK” or any other mark that is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademark “WORLD BOOK” in respect of printing/publishing of books and other reference materials and educational products, either in print or in software versions as also on their website.
•  To enable the defendant to make adequate alternate arrangements with regard to the books, reference material being published by it under the impugned mark, it is deemed appropriate to direct that this order shall come in operation upon expiry of four weeks reckoned from the date of intimation of this order.

 It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot apply from the date of registration and, therefore, the impugned order falls outside the scope and ambit of Section 7(7) as the 1st Respondent was incorporated on 24th August, 2012.

In the present case, we are not inclined to decide the question as to whether the application under Section 7(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 was barred by limitation, the Tribunal having not dismissed the petition on such ground.