The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with an interim injunction restraining a company from using the name “Kataria Insurance.” The court held that the use of the mark was deceptively similar to a registered trademark already used by another insurance consultancy and could mislead consumers.
A division bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and R.N. Laddha delivered the ruling while hearing a commercial appeal filed by Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. against an earlier order of a single judge.
Read also:- Madras High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Says Failure to Prove Victim’s Age Fatally Weakens Prosecution
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a trademark infringement suit filed by Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy. He claimed that he had been offering insurance services since 1999 and had been using the mark “Kataria” for insurance-related services since 2004.
According to the plaintiff, the name “Kataria” became the essential and distinctive feature of his business identity in the insurance sector. He also secured trademark registrations in Class 36 for insurance and related financial services, including the mark “Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy” and the word mark “Kataria.”
The plaintiff further stated that he registered and operated the domain name “kataria.insurance” to promote his services online and had built considerable goodwill in the insurance sector over the years.
Dispute Over Similar Name and Domain
The controversy began when the plaintiff discovered that a company named Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited had been incorporated and was operating under a similar name. The company was also running a website with the domain “katariainsurance.co.in” to advertise insurance services.
The plaintiff argued that the corporate name, trademark, and domain used by the company were deceptively similar to his registered mark. He claimed that such use could confuse customers and divert business.
He therefore approached the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction restraining the company from using the name “Kataria Insurance,” along with damages of ₹5 lakh for trademark infringement and passing off.
Earlier Single Judge Order
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought interim relief. The single judge examined whether the conditions for trademark infringement were satisfied.
The court observed that:
- The plaintiff had valid trademark registrations for the mark “Kataria” in Class 36.
- The defendant was using a similar mark in the same field of insurance services.
- Such use was likely to cause confusion among customers.
Based on these findings, the single judge granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant company from using the disputed mark and related domain name.
Arguments Before the Division Bench
Before the appellate bench, the company argued that “Kataria” was a family surname used by its promoters for decades in various businesses.
The appellant contended that:
- The Kataria group had been using the name since the 1950s in several ventures, including automobile dealerships and related services.
- The use of a surname should be protected under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, which allows bona fide use of one’s own name in business.
It also argued that its business mainly related to automobile insurance, while the plaintiff focused on jewellery insurance consultancy.
On the other hand, the plaintiff submitted that he had long and continuous use of the trademark “Kataria” for insurance services and had secured valid trademark registrations.
He argued that the defendant’s corporate name, trademark, and domain were deceptively similar and were being used for identical services, thereby causing confusion in the market.
Court’s Observations
The division bench examined the scope of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, which protects the bona fide use of one’s own name in business.
The court noted that this protection primarily applies to natural persons using their personal names. Companies, however, have the freedom to choose their corporate names and therefore cannot easily claim protection under this provision.
The bench also observed that the plaintiff had established long and continuous use of the mark “Kataria” in the insurance sector and had obtained trademark registrations covering insurance services.
It found that the defendant’s use of the name “Kataria Insurance” and its similar domain name was likely to cause confusion and dilute the goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s mark.
Read also:- Supreme Court Seeks Expert Input to Define ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, Orders Status Quo on
Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court upheld the reasoning of the single judge and declined to interfere with the interim injunction.
The court concluded that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, and that continued use of the disputed name by the defendant could cause confusion among consumers and damage the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed, and the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff was allowed to continue.
Case Title: Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria
Case No.: Commercial Appeal (L) No. 42036 of 2025
Case Type: Commercial Appeal (Trademark Infringement)
Decision Date: 23 February 2026
