Introduction:

In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court has cited Shakespeare’s “What’s in a name?” to emphasize the sanctity of using one’s own name, protecting it as an identity marker under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court explored the delicate balance between the right to use one’s name and potential trademark infringement, highlighting the constitutional implications of compromising personal identity.

Arguments:

Jindal Industries Private Limited sought an interim injunction against Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement over the use of “RN Jindal SS Tubes” and “Jindal” in any form. The court analyzed Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that the Act does not entitle the trademark proprietor to interfere with a person’s bona fide use of their own name. The court rejected the notion of extending trademark privileges to monopolize common names, safeguarding the broader right to personal identity.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice C Hari Shankar ruled against granting an interim injunction, citing no prima facie likelihood of confusion due to distinct features in Suncity Sheets’ composite mark. The court asserted that obtaining registration for a common name, like “JINDAL,” does not grant a monopoly over its use, especially when incorporated into a larger composite mark. The judgment underscores the inherent risks in registering common names as trademarks and safeguards individuals’ rights to use their names without interference.