I support my noble friend Lord Sharman. This is not a theoretical problem. At present there are a number of very practical cases—I am inclined to use Sainsbury’s as an example, although I cannot see how anyone using Sainsbury’s at any level of activity would be caught by our amendment—where companies with similar names are trading at completely different levels of activity without a problem. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the adjudicator should be given the power—in this case, to make an order—to require one of the companies not to change its name but to undertake not to trade in the activities where there is a conflict.
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Razzall
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c119-20GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:27:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296638
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296638
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296638