Common personal names require proof of secondary meaning for exclusive trademark protection and interim injunctive relief.

The Appellants (Plaintiffs), a proprietorship firm dealing in jewellery, filed a suit under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, claiming exclusive rights to the trademark "NEERAJ" since 2016.

They alleged that the Respondents (Defendants) were dishonestly using deceptively similar marks, specifically "NEERAJ A1" and "NEERAJ 100," to trade upon their goodwill.

The Appellants filed an application for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was rejected by the Commercial Court, Raipur, on 10.09.2025.

The Trial Court found that the marks "NEERAJ A1" and "NEERAJ 100" were unregistered and that a third party, Pawan Kumar Agrawal, had prior application and user dates compared to the Appellants.

1. Whether the Appellants established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to warrant a temporary injunction.

2. Whether the common personal name "NEERAJ" is entitled to trademark exclusivity and protection against similar marks.

The court applied Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which governs the three-pillar test for temporary injunctions.

It referred to Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding the rights of registered owners and the nature of infringement.

The court also invoked Section 35 of the Act, which protects the bona fide use of a person’s own name.

It relied on the precedent set in Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt Ltd v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani (2022), which held that generic or common names are "weak" trademarks and require proof of "secondary meaning" for exclusivity.

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the Appellants failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court observed through trademark search reports that one Pawan Kumar Agrawal had applied for the marks "NEERAJ A1" and "NEERAJ 100" on 11.04.2023, whereas the Appellants only applied in May 2023.

Furthermore, Agrawal’s user date (October 2018) preceded the Appellants’ (February 2019).

Applying the Vasundhra Jewellers principle, the court reasoned that "Neeraj" is a common name in India and lacks inherent distinctiveness; the Appellants failed to provide consumer surveys or trade data to prove the name had acquired a secondary meaning associated exclusively with their business.

Consequently, the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not satisfied.

The court held that the Appellants failed to prove the essential ingredients for an injunction, particularly as their trademark applications were subsequent to a third party’s and the mark itself was a common name.

The case remains pending before the Trial Court for final adjudication.