Airtel definition
Airtel means Airtel Africa.
Airtel means Bharti Airtel International.
Airtel means Airtel Money Kenya Limited, incorporated in Kenya as a limited liability company under the Companies Act.
Examples of Airtel in a sentence
You shall ensure that your Airtel Money PIN does not become known or come into possession of any unauthorized person.
All Customer Equipment shall be returned to Airtel forthwith on termination of this Agreement and Airtel shall return any security deposit if applicable to the Customer after making the due deductions.
Thereafter Airtel will levy a site support charge to be determined by Airtel.
If the Customer fails to do so, then Airtel may enter the Customer's premises and take possession of them.
The Customer Equipment shall also be available on a fixed monthly rental in which case the Customer shall be required to submit a security deposit with Airtel as per Airtel's prescribed predetermined rates.
More Definitions of Airtel
Airtel means Airtel Uganda Limited, a private limited liability company incorporated and operating under the laws of Uganda;
Airtel means Bharti Airtel International. “AlU” means the annualised number of colocation tenancies added to our portfolio in a defined period of time divided by the average number of total sites for the same
Airtel. Means Airtel Networks Kenya Limited a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Kenya under the Companies Act (Chapter 486 of the Laws of Kenya) of ▇.▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ - ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (hereinafter referred to as “AIRTEL” which expression shall where the context so admits include its successors and assigns).
Airtel means Bharti Airtel International. “amendment colocation tenant” means an existing
Airtel means Bharti Airtel Limited and/or Bharti Hexacom Limited who are providing the Airtel Plan as a part of Products.
Airtel s GSM Network” means the GSM System for mobile telecommunications operated by Airtel Networks Limited (Airtel Nigeria) in Nigeria
Airtel is not in any case the invention of the plaintiff. Lastly, that the plaintiffs have no basis for sustaining an action for pass off. The 1st defendant confirmed that it has cleared the names “Airtel Networks Zambia Limited,” and or “Airtel Money Limited” for incorporation. The 2nd defendant also filed the memorandum of appearance, and defence on 1st December, 2010. The 2nd defendant averred that it is a subsidiary of Celtel Zambia PLC, not a party to this action. The 2nd defendant was incorporated on 11th February, 2010, under the name Zain Developers Forum Limited. The 2nd defendant further avers that in August, 2010, it changed its name to Bharti Airtel Developers Limited, following the acquisition of Zain Africa Holdings BV, the majority shareholder of Celtel Zambia on 30th March 2010, by Bharti Airtel Limited of India, which commonly operates under the well known trademark of Airtel. The 2nd defendant contends that whilst negotiations were underway for the acquisition of Zain Africa Holdings BV; the majority shareholder of Celtel Zambia Plc by Bhahti Airtel Limited, early in 2010, a matter which was notoriously in the public domain in Zambia, the 2nd plaintiff company, Airtel Zambia Limited was incorporated on 17th February, 2010. The 2nd defendant avers that the records at the Patents and Companies Registration Agency show that the shareholders of the 2nd plaintiff are; ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. The 2nd defendant further avers that on 9th March, 2010, another similar company, namely, Airtel Holdings Limited; the 1st plaintiff in this action, was incorporated by Messrs Airtel Holdings Limited; promoted by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Moomba Mambo. The 2nd defendant denies that it ever attempted to register a company by the name of “Airtel Networks Limited”, as alleged by the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant however admits that it applied for name clearance in respect of “Airtel Money Limited.” The 2nd defendant contends that no confusion can occur from the registration of a name on the 1st defendant’s companies register bearing the word “Airtel” in combination with other words by the mere fact that the plaintiffs names embody that word. The 2nd defendant maintains that the plaintiffs shall be put to strict proof of any alleged goodwill acquired by them in any trade, business or profession in Zambia. Alternatively, the 2nd defendant contends that the three plaintiff companies are not entitled to exclusive use of the word “Airtel”, bec...