Delhi High Court Upholds the Right to Use One’s Own Name Against Trademark Claims. Delhi High Court referenced William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet to assert that an individual’s right to use their own name for their products cannot be infringed upon by claims of trademark violation.
In a judgment that resonates with the age-old question posed by Juliet in Shakespeare’s 1597 play,
“What’s in a name?”,
the Delhi High Court has provided a significant answer through its recent litigation. Justice C Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, underscored the intrinsic value and legal rights associated with personal names in the context of trademark disputes.
The court’s deliberation revolved around Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, which has been a subject of interpretation in cases where personal names clash with registered trademarks. Justice Shankar clarified,
“Section 35 provides that a proprietor or a registered user of a trade mark cannot interfere with any bona fide use by a person of his own name for his business.”
This interpretation reaffirms the legal safeguard for individuals to use their own names in commerce, highlighting the balance between trademark rights and personal liberties.
The court emphasized that any interpretation of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act that prohibits the use of a person’s own name for their goods would amount to
“reading a non-existent proviso into Section 35 and, in effect, rewriting the provision.”
This statement by the court underlines the absolute nature of the proscription under Section 35, extending to both infringement and passing off actions, thereby reinforcing an individual’s right to use their own name in business, irrespective of trademark claims.
The case in question involved the registration of a common name or surname, “JINDAL”, as a trademark. The court observed that obtaining a trademark for a common name comes with inherent risks due to the potential existence of multiple individuals with the same name. Justice Shankar noted,
“It is open to anyone, and everyone, to use his name on his goods, and, therefore, the possibility of there being several ‘JINDAL’s looms large.”
This observation addresses the limitations of trademark law in monopolizing common names and surnames, ensuring that the legal framework does not restrict the natural rights of individuals sharing those names.
Furthermore, the court concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the products of the two companies involved and that no case for passing off was made out. Justice Shankar stated,
“No one, much less a consumer of average intelligence, who reads the text on the defendants’ impugned mark, would regard it as a mark of the plaintiff.”
This conclusion highlights the court’s stance on the discernibility and intelligence of consumers in distinguishing between products, thereby dismissing the interim injunction application.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a precedent in trademark law, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and the limitations of trademark protection when it comes to personal names. This judgment not only sheds light on the legal nuances of personal names versus trademarks but also reassures individuals of their rights to use their own names in their business endeavors without undue interference from trademark claims.
CASE DETAILS:
Case title – Jindal Industries Private Limited v Suncity Sheets Private Limited and Anr.
Appeared for Jindal Industries- Senior Advocate Chander M Lall along with advocates Sarad Kumar Sunny, Rohan Dua, Keshav Mann and Yashi Dubey.
Appeared for Rachna Jindal (owner of the Suncity)- Advocates J Sai Deepak, Kishore Kunal, Abhishek Avadhani and Runjhun Pare.
