2014 (8) TMI 528 - SC - Companies Law

Infringement of trademark - Appellants restrained from doing their business in the concerned name - Interim order u/s 35F - Held that - interlocutory order passed by the Court below is not just and proper in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act - Section 35 of the Act permits anyone to do his business in his own name in a bona fide manner. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the defendants are doing their business in their own name and their bona fides have not been disputed. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendants are related to each other and practically all the family members are in the business of jewellery - looking at the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants could not have been restrained from doing their busines. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order granting interim relief in favour of the plaintiff - decided in favour of Applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in the context of an interim order restraining the defendants from using their family surname in their business name.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the plaintiff and defendant firms, belonging to the same family with the common surname "Rakyan," were engaged in the jewellery business in Delhi. The plaintiff firm, operating as "Rakyan's Fine Jewellery," filed a suit seeking to restrain the defendants, operating as "NEENA AND RAVI RAKYAN," from using the name and style in their business. The interim relief granted by the lower court restrained the defendants from conducting business under the disputed name, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The defendants contended that they had the right to use their own names in their business, citing Section 35 of the Act, which allows bona fide use of one's name or that of their place of business. On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the defendants had no right to use the surname "RAKYAN" in their business name, especially given the proximity of their shops. Both parties relied on legal precedents to support their arguments.

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions, found that the defendants were conducting business in their own name in a bona fide manner. The court observed that there was no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff under Section 35 of the Act. Additionally, upon examining the hoardings of the shops, the court noted no similarity between them. Therefore, the court quashed the interim order, allowing the defendants to continue their business under the name "NEENA AND RAVI RAKYAN."

The judgment emphasized that the court's decision was based on a prima facie view and did not constitute a final determination. The trial court was directed to adjudicate the case based on the evidence presented before it, highlighting that the observations in the judgment were not conclusive. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, indicating the reversal of the interim relief granted to the plaintiff.