I have been trading as a sole trader, using a 'trading as' name, for
18 years. I have just discovered that a limited company has very
recently (2 months back) been formed in my exact 'trading as' name.
They are based about 50 miles from me and in exactly the same line of
business.

I have books, bank statements and tax returns proving my length of
trading. Can they cause me to cease using my established 'trading as'
name?
Thanks

JamesT wrote:
> I have been trading as a sole trader, using a 'trading as' name, for
> 18 years. I have just discovered that a limited company has very
> recently (2 months back) been formed in my exact 'trading as' name.
> They are based about 50 miles from me and in exactly the same line of
> business.
>
> I have books, bank statements and tax returns proving my length of
> trading. Can they cause me to cease using my established 'trading as'
> name?

Not if you were first.  The situation is that no-one is entitled to 
"pass-off" their business as that of someone else and ride on the back of 
someone else's established reputation to divert business their way.  So, if 
your reputation extended significantly into their area then you could 
possibly prevent their use of the name.  However, there is nothing they can 
do to prevent you continuing to use the name you have for so long.

If you think it's in your interest to stop the limited company from trading 
under what is effectively your name, then you should get your solicitor to 
write to them appropriately.  You should also get a trade mark search 
carried out and oppose any applications they may have.

On 5 Aug, 18:04, "Norman Wells"  wrote:

> Not if you were first.  The situation is that no-one is entitled to
> "pass-off" their business as that of someone else and ride on the back of
> someone else's established reputation to divert business their way.  So, if
> your reputation extended significantly into their area then you could
> possibly prevent their use of the name.  However, there is nothing they can
> do to prevent you continuing to use the name you have for so long.
>
> If you think it's in your interest to stop the limited company from trading
> under what is effectively your name, then you should get your solicitor to
> write to them appropriately.  You should also get a trade mark search
> carried out and oppose any applications they may have.

I agree with Norman - if anyone has a claim it's you and if you think
that they might be out to damage your business you should take pre-
emptive action ASAP. Just because the name wasn't already taken on the
register of companies does not mean they are free to use it in direct
competition with your established business.

Some general info:
http://www.ipit-update.com/passingoff.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

On Aug 5, 5:17 pm, JamesT  wrote:
> I have been trading as a sole trader, using a 'trading as' name, for
> 18 years. I have just discovered that a limited company has very
> recently (2 months back) been formed in my exact 'trading as' name.
> They are based about 50 miles from me and in exactly the same line of
> business.
>
> I have books, bank statements and tax returns proving my length of
> trading. Can they cause me to cease using my established 'trading as'
> name?
> Thanks

I agree with the advice you have been given by other replies.  The
person forming a new limited company cannot have any name he wishes.

I suggest you look at -  http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbf2.shtml#one

which explains the restrictions on names for new limited companies.

NB Get objecting, asap

Thanks for those very helpful replies. I'm not so sure this company is
even aware of my trading name, because the key word in their name
(example: Silverdale Property Services) is also the name of the street
in their address, so this is probably all just a coincidence.

However in view of my field of business, potential customers sometimes
do a companies house search before dealing with me, and consequently I
am starting to get queries about the claim on my website of being
established in 19xx. That's how I discovered the limited company's
existence.

Would this be sufficient grounds to make an objection?

"JamesT"  wrote in message 
news:f8fab431-90e8-4489-a548-351577e5d8c9@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for those very helpful replies. I'm not so sure this company is
> even aware of my trading name, because the key word in their name
> (example: Silverdale Property Services) is also the name of the street
> in their address, so this is probably all just a coincidence.
>
> However in view of my field of business, potential customers sometimes
> do a companies house search before dealing with me, and consequently I
> am starting to get queries about the claim on my website of being
> established in 19xx. That's how I discovered the limited company's
> existence.
>
> Would this be sufficient grounds to make an objection?
>
I don't know the answer to that, but are you sure that this is the company 
name or their "trading as" name?  If it's the former then I don't believe 
you can do anything about that, but you might be able to insist that they 
*trade* under a different name.

You'll almost certainly need the advice of a solicitor over this, so really 
you'll have to weigh up the possibility of your business being confused with 
theirs against the costs of getting them to change theirs.  In the meantime 
keep a record of everyone who is getting confused between the two 
businesses.
-- 
Hungerdunger
To reply by email, remove the MARX from my address

On Aug 6, 11:49 pm, JamesT  wrote:
> Thanks for those very helpful replies. I'm not so sure this company is
> even aware of my trading name, because the key word in their name
> (example: Silverdale Property Services) is also the name of the street
> in their address, so this is probably all just a coincidence.
>
> However in view of my field of business, potential customers sometimes
> do a companies house search before dealing with me, and consequently I
> am starting to get queries about the claim on my website of being
> established in 19xx. That's how I discovered the limited company's
> existence.
>
> Would this be sufficient grounds to make an objection?

As far as I'm aware there's no law to stop them forming a limited
company with a similar (or even identical) name to your business,
however they're not permitted to trade under that name. If your
business is 'Silverdale Property Services' then (as I understand it)
Silverdale Property Services Ltd are OK to use that name for their
limited company but not for trading purposes. They potentially may use
'SP Services' as a trading name, but not any name that is likely to
cause confusion with an existing business.

If you can show that it's causing any confusion for potential
customers then AIUI you have a cast iron case for passing-off. Even
potential confusion gives you a sound case.

I'd suggest that you speak to them in the first instance, ask them to
change the limited company name to avoid potential confusion - you may
even point out that the confusion between the two business names may
harm their own business. If they don't agree to change their trading
style then see a solicitor.

I am not a lawyer however.

--

Andy

On 6 Aug, 23:49, JamesT  wrote:
> Thanks for those very helpful replies. I'm not so sure this company is
> even aware of my trading name, because the key word in their name
> (example: Silverdale Property Services) is also the name of the street
> in their address, so this is probably all just a coincidence.
>
> However in view of my field of business, potential customers sometimes
> do a companies house search before dealing with me, and consequently I
> am starting to get queries about the claim on my website of being
> established in 19xx. That's how I discovered the limited company's
> existence.
>
> Would this be sufficient grounds to make an objection?

Hi again,

Accoring to one of the links I posted before:

    "A claim may be brought where:

    * the claimant’s goods or services have acquired a goodwill or
reputation
    in the market and are known by some distinguishing feature;

    * there is a misrepresentation by the defendant (WHETHER OR NOT
    INTENTIONAL) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that
goods
    or services offered by the defendant are goods or services of the
    claimant; and

    * the claimant has suffered, or is likely to suffer, damage as a
result of
    the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant’s
misrepresentation.

    This restatement of the elements of passing off is often referred
to as
    the "classic trinity".

NB the words in caps - it doesn't matter whether they intend to
mislead the public or not, they are still commiting the tort of
"passing off", you're likely to suffer damage as a consequence and
you're within your rights to insist that they stop.

Cheers!

Martin

Thanks very much guys, your advice has been extremely helpful in
clarifying the situation for me.

JamesT