ltd company

sohappy

I want to form a ltd company lets call it (house) I already have the domain house.ie,
on a search of the cro website (house ltd) was disolved as a company over 10 years ago , does this mean that I could form a ltd company of that name or am I better just using a name that has not been used before? are there issues to consider?

EamonOSullivan

sohappy wrote: »

I want to form a ltd company lets call it (house) I already have the domain house.ie,
on a search of the cro website (house ltd) was disolved as a company over 10 years ago , does this mean that I could form a ltd company of that name or am I better just using a name that has not been used before? are there issues to consider?

give Companies Office a call at 804 5200. In my experience they wont allow identical names of companies that are listed. Could you call your company House Music Ltd? Or could you get the domain name bungalow.ie?

pedroeibar1

It might be allowed – as you appear to have registered the business name with the CRO (in order to obtain the domain name).
If it is allowed, there is a downside if the old company was dissolved for a ‘negative’ reason and that negativity could (wrongly) be associated with your business. Also, some suppliers might confuse the old with the new and that could lead to credit issues.

sohappy

Thanks for the replys, think I will change the name to one that wasnt registered before to save any confusion

mneylon

Your Ltd could be called something completely random - there's nothing to stop you using a registered business name to publicise and trade

pedroeibar1

Blacknight wrote: »

Your Ltd could be called something completely random - there's nothing to stop you using a registered business name to publicise and trade

Agreed, but it does not solve any issues, as the OP must be very up-front with the names, having the Ltd co name and the trading style clearly marked on all stationery, cards, invoices, etc.
Using the OP’s hypothetical name/situation, he can create and operate as 'House Ltd. trading as (or t/a) House Supplies' but in doing so he is fracturing the brand image by having dissimilar company name, domain name and trading style. It also could be inferred that the trading style 'House Supplies' is being used to avoid the 'House Ltd.' name. Personally I think the OP made the correct decision in post #4.

Graham

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Agreed, but it does not solve any issues, as the OP must be very up-front with the names, having the Ltd co name and the trading style clearly marked on all stationery, cards, invoices, etc.
Using the OP’s hypothetical name/situation, he can create and operate as 'House Ltd. trading as (or t/a) House Supplies' but in doing so he is fracturing the brand image by having dissimilar company name, domain name and trading style. It also could be inferred that the trading style 'House Supplies' is being used to avoid the 'House Ltd.' name. Personally I think the OP made the correct decision in post #4.

I can think of hundreds of brand names that are in use that aren't remotely similar to the names of the companies that operate them. I'm not sure why it would be a problem. Likewise with domain names.

pedroeibar1

Graham wrote: »

I can think of hundreds of brand names that are in use that aren't remotely similar to the names of the companies that operate them. I'm not sure why it would be a problem. Likewise with domain names.

Of course there are, I never said otherwise. However, that is not the issue and you seem to have missed the point. OP has a registered business name and a domain name that are the same as a dissolved entity. The question was what is best to do. Say for example’s sake the names are Anglo Irish Bank. Now would it be better for him to trade as Anglo Irish Bank Ltd trading as Nice Bank and have that on every bit of media material or to simply start over by creating Nice Bank Ltd.?

Your comment on brands could also be debated, it’s another argument and OT. The strongest brands in the world all have a single identity/image - Apple, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Google, Adidas, McDonalds, General Electric, Louis Vuitton, BMW, Intel, Cisco, Samsung, Oracle, Toyota, Disney, etc. Of the Top 100 I cannot think of one that is otherwise.
Edit - Zara, while it has its own brand image is actually owned by Inditex

Graham

I'm not disagreeing with you, if the old dissolved company name 'House Limited' has a poor reputation attached to it then of course it would be prudent to consider an alternative for his new Limited company. At the same time if the OP has invested substantial effort into the trading name/brand 'house.ie' then there's no problem picking an alternative Limited Company name but sticking with the chosen brand/trading name.

Id disagree about the largest/strongest brands presenting a single image, some of the companies you listed operate under dozens of brand names but you're right that is O/T.

J.Ryan

Graham wrote: »

....... At the same time if the OP has invested substantial effort into the trading name/brand 'house.ie' then there's no problem picking an alternative Limited Company name but sticking with the chosen brand/trading name.....

The problem is that the company can be restored, claim ownership of the trading name (as Limited Company Name has priority over Trading Name) and force OP to change trading name anyway.

Graham

J.Ryan wrote: »

The problem is that the company can be restored, claim ownership of the trading name (as Limited Company Name has priority over Trading Name) and force OP to change trading name anyway.

Wow, wasn't aware that was even an option 10 years after the event, thanks JR. It's probably unlikely to happen after such an amount of time but on the other hand the more successful the OP becomes under the name, the more likely it is to happen.

Would the circumstances under which the original company were removed from the company register have any bearing on this? Is there anything the original company would have to do to check the name is not in use before the company is re-listed? Would registering a trademark for the trading name offer any sort of protection?

Peterdalkey

J.Ryan wrote: »

The problem is that the company can be restored, claim ownership of the trading name (as Limited Company Name has priority over Trading Name) and force OP to change trading name anyway.

It can only be restored if has not been disolved and then it needs a High Court order with all the costs that entails, Hugely unlikely to happen. The big risk is with reputationa and perceived credit worthiness, not a risk worth taking in my opinion. Cheapest time to sort it is now!

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

It can only be restored if has not been disolved and then it needs a High Court order with all the costs that entails, Hugely unlikely to happen. The big risk is with reputationa and perceived credit worthiness, not a risk worth taking in my opinion. Cheapest time to sort it is now!

Not quite - it can be restored even if it was dissolved, struck off voluntarily or involuntarily but I fully agree with your last two sentences.

Some other posts are bringing this topic down the BS track of angels on pinheads...... the company was not struck off, it was ‘dissolved’ per OP. That usually follows a liquidation, which is why I mentioned credit reputation (and which you also pointed out). It can be restored, the legal costs would run to about €5k (it’s no big deal legally, conveyor-belt stuff, a matter of a few signatures from CRO, Revenue, High Court, etc. ) but an annual return complete with accounts signed by an auditor for every year need to be supplied also – so €500 per year for 10 years and the ‘restorer’ is looking at a minimum of €10k. I'm not sure if late filing fees also apply.....So who would bother their .r$e?