### Section 35 Protection for Bonafide Use of Surnames Extends to Corporate Entities Sharing Family Names

The Respondent (original Plaintiff), trading as ‘Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy,’ is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘KATARIA’ in Class 36, specializing in gems and jewellery insurance since 2004.

He filed a suit for infringement and passing off against the Appellant (original Defendant), ‘Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.,’ an Ahmedabad-based company incorporated in 2014 providing general insurance services.

The Appellant is part of the ‘Kataria Group,’ which has used the family surname ‘Kataria’ in various businesses (transport, automobiles) since 1955.

A learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction against the Appellant, holding that the marks were deceptively similar and that Section 35 protection (bonafide use of name) applies only to natural persons, not corporate entities.

The Appellant challenged this order before the Division Bench.

1. Whether the protection under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, specifically the bonafide use of one’s own name, is available to incorporated entities or is restricted to natural persons.

2. Whether the registration of a trademark in a broad category like ‘Insurance’ under Class 36 entitles the proprietor to a monopoly over all species of insurance services, even if the businesses operate in distinct niches (e.g., jewellery vs. vehicular insurance).

The court applied Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act regarding infringement.

It applied Section 35, which saves the "bonafide use by a person of his own name" from interference by a registered proprietor.

It relied on *Precious Jewels v. Varun Gems*, establishing that Section 35 permits business in one’s own name in a bonafide manner.

It adopted the principle from *Vishnudas v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.*, holding that a trader cannot enjoy a monopoly over an entire broad classification if they only trade in specific articles within that class.

It further referenced *Jindal Industries v. Suncity Sheets*, noting that common surnames cannot be monopolized to foreclose the rest of humanity from using them.

The Court reasoned that the Single Judge erred in restricting Section 35 to natural persons.

Citing the General Clauses Act and the history of the Kataria family’s business since 1955, the Court found the Appellant’s use of ‘Kataria’ as a corporate name was a legitimate extension of a long-standing family identity, not a malafide attempt to trade on the Respondent's goodwill.

The Court observed that while both parties operate under Class 36, their services are distinct—the Respondent occupies a "niche" in jewellery insurance, while the Appellant focuses on vehicular and general insurance.

Applying the *Vishnudas* principle, the Court held that the Respondent’s registration for jewellery insurance does not grant an absolute monopoly over the entire insurance sector.

Since the Appellant offered an undertaking not to enter the jewellery insurance market, the likelihood of confusion or "initial interest confusion" was minimized.

It further held that there was no infringement under Section 29 as the areas of operation (jewellery vs. vehicular insurance) were distinct.

The Appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge’s order dated 8th December 2025 was quashed and set aside.

The injunction against the Appellant was vacated, subject to their statement that they would not engage in jewellery insurance.