Use Of Full Name Not Mandatory To Avail Protection U/S 35 Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the benefit of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, which proscribes any injunction being granted against the use by the defendants of his/ her name as a trademark, is not restricted to use of full name by the defendant.“Section 35 places no such limitation,” observed a division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla.The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. seeking injunction against Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, over the trademark "Vasundhara".The Respondent contended that the mark VASUNDHARA was based on its proprietor's first name Vasundhara Mantri and is thus protected under Section 35.Appellant contended that the benefit of Section 35 is available only where the full name is used.Rejecting this contention, the High Court held,“in the absence of any particular stipulation, in Section 35, to the effect that it applies only where the full name is used, we are unwilling to read any such limitation into the provision. It is trite that courts cannot re-write the statute.”Refusing to pass any interim order against the Respondent, it added, “A name is a name. It cannot be denied that VASUNDHARA was the name of Vasundhara Mantri…submission that the protection under Section 35 would be available only if the respondents were to use the full name “Vasundhara Mantri”, therefore, merely has to be stated to be rejected.”The Court relied on Precious Jewels v. Varun Gems (2015) where relief was granted by the Supreme Court even in a case where the appellant was using its surname. “The defendant cannot be restrained from using their common surname in a bona fide manner for the purposes of their business,” the Top Court had held.It also noted that finding with regard to the use of full name in Goenka Institute of Education and Research v. Anjani Kumar Goenka (2009) was mere obiter and no interim injunction was granted in that case despite use of only first name by the defendant, on the ground that the defendant was an honest concurrent user.In the present case as well, the High Court noted that VASUNDHARA was used by Vasundhara Mantri and there was nothing on record on the basis of which her bona fides could be questioned. “It was her own name,” the Court said and dismissed the appeal.Appearance: Mr. Sagar Chandra, Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Aarushi Jain, Mr. Yojit Pareek, Ms. Shubhie Wahi, Ms. Sanya Kapoor, Ms. Ankita, Mr. Prassant Kr. Sharma and Mr. Chetan Charitra, Advs. for Appellant; Mr. Shuvasish Sen Gupta, Mr. Kumar Vivek Vibhu, Mr. Pawan Maheshwari and Mr. Bhavesh Garodia Advs. for RespondentsCase title: Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLPCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1033Case no.: FAO(OS) (COMM) 232/2023 Click here to read order

Use Of Full Name Not Mandatory To Avail Protection U/S 35 Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags