Bona fide use of one's own name in business cannot be restrained by interim order where no prima facie case is shown.

Bona fide use of one's own family name in business is protected under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and an interim restraint cannot be granted without a prima facie case. The parties were members of the same family engaged in jewellery business, and the defendants used their own names in the firm name; their bona fides were not disputed. On that material, the Supreme Court found the interim order unsustainable because it conflicted with the statutory saving for honest use of a personal name, and the restraint was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendants could be restrained by an interim order from using their own family name in the course of business in view of the saving provision protecting bona fide use of one's own name.

Analysis: The dispute arose at the interlocutory stage. The parties belonged to the same family and were carrying on jewellery business under different names. The defendants were using their own names in the firm name, and their bona fides were not disputed. On the material before it, the Court found no prima facie case for restraining such use. Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects bona fide use by a person of his own name, and the Court found the impugned interim restraint inconsistent with that protection.

Conclusion: The interim order restraining the defendants from using their business name was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the appellants.

---