Bombay High Court: In a trade mark dispute between Kataria Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd. (appellant) and Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy (respondent), the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and R.N. Laddha, JJ., held that the appellant’s use of the surname “Kataria” was bona fide, continuous, and rooted in family identity. It was, hence, held that “Kataria” surname was protected under Section 35, Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trade Marks Act). The Court clarified that Section 35, Trade Marks Act, applies to companies as well, since “person” under the General Clauses Act, 1897 (General Clauses Act), includes corporate entities.
Finding that the respondent operated in jewellery insurance while the appellant dealt in automobile insurance, the Court observed there was no deceptive similarity or overlap. Accordingly, the Court quashed the injunction restraining the appellant from using “Kataria” in its trade name, domain, and corporate identity, leaving questions of bona fide and prior use to be determined at trial.
Background
The respondent engaged in insurance consultancy services claimed continuous use of the trade mark “Kataria” since 2004, with registrations in Class 36 covering insurance, financial, and real estate services. The respondent alleged that the appellant adopted the corporate name “Kataria Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd.” and domain name/website in violation of its statutory and common law rights.
The respondent contended that the appellant’s use was dishonest, likely to cause confusion, and amounted to infringement under Sections 28 and 29, Trade Marks Act, arguing that exclusivity of the registered mark entitled it to protection against identical or deceptively similar marks in the same class.
The appellant, however, argued that “Kataria” was a family surname used bona fide under Section 35, Trade Marks Act, and that its business was distinct, focusing on automobile insurance rather than jewellery insurance.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that a proprietor or registered user of a registered trade mark is not permitted to interfere with any bona fide use by a person of his own name or that of his place of business, or the name of place of business or any of his predecessors in business or the use by any person of any bona fide description of the character or quality of his goods or services. The Court highlighted that to seek protection under Section 35, Trade Marks Act, it is imperative to satisfy the court about the bona fide use or bona fide description of the goods or services used by the defendant.
Since the use of the mark “Kataria” by the appellant is bona fide and continuous, and although it involves the insurance business, the reasoning adopted by the Single Judge restricting the applicability of Section 35, Trade Marks Act to natural persons is not approved. The Trade Marks Act does not define the term “person” but under the General Clauses Act, a person includes any company, association, or body of individuals. The Court observed that it is not for the first time that the appellant has used the word “Kataria” which is its family name. Therefore, the Court does not agree with the proposition that Section 35, Trade Marks Act blanketly excludes companies and can only be availed by individuals, as no such embargo is found in the provision itself.
The Court noted that the appellant, though incorporated in 2014 for providing insurance services, is not attempting to ride on the respondent’s goodwill, but is legitimately exercising the right to use the surname or family name in its trading and business activity. The Court further highlighted that, as far as the prior use of the trade mark “Kataria” is concerned, the appellant’s mark is not registered, but it is using the mark “Kataria,” being its surname, with continuity, and has encashed upon it by creating a business world through the goodwill of its forefathers/predecessors and is banking upon the same. If the appellant, which is not an isolated entity but belongs to a group of companies using the surname “Kataria” is restrained from conducting its business, it would cause serious prejudice to it.
The Court also noted that the appellant has invoked its own goodwill and reputation in the conduct of its business activity through various entities with the name “Kataria” and the revenue generated by it as a group entity from 2020—2021 to 2024—2025 is around Rs 17,268 crores. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the appellant is a fly-by-night operator or a novice who has entered the business arena merely to encash the goodwill of the respondent. The Court observed that the promoter of the appellant has been using the name “Kataria” since 1955, has been involved in automobile dealership business since 1966, and has also been providing ancillary services relating to insurance since 2003.
The Court emphasised that the respondent was operating in jewellery insurance, while the appellant was engaged in vehicular insurance linked to its automobile business. Though both fell under Class 36, the Court held that the class is broad, their services were distinct, and there was no deceptive similarity or overlap.
Since the Single Judge had not considered important facets, the Court quashed the injunction order restraining the appellant from using “Kataria” in its trade name, domain, and corporate identity. With the disposal of the appeal, the interim applications also stood disposed.
[Kataria Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, Commercial Appeal (L) No. 42036 of 2025, decided on 23-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Kunal Vaishnav, Monika Tanna, Dhara Modi and Harkirat Kaur i/b Singhania Legal Services
For the Respondent: Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Ashutosh Kane, Kanak Kadam and Archita i/b W.S. Kane and Co.