Delhi High Court Rules Common Names Like ‘NEHA’ Can Be Trademarked If Distinctiveness Is Proven

A Landmark in Trademark Law: Personal Names and Their Commercial Identity

In a ruling that is poised to reshape how personal names are treated in Indian trademark jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has held that even common names, such as “NEHA”, are capable of being trademarked if they acquire inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning in the market. The decision brings Indian intellectual property law closer to global practices regarding personal names and trademark protection.

---

Case Background

The dispute centered around the name “NEHA”, which was being used in the marketing and branding of beauty products. The plaintiff sought to restrain another party from using the same name, claiming that “NEHA” had become closely associated with their brand and had acquired a secondary meaning through long-standing and exclusive commercial use.

The defendant argued that “NEHA” is a common Indian name, and as such, does not qualify as a distinctive mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

---

Court’s Analysis and Key Legal Findings

Justice [Name Withheld for Summary Purposes], in delivering the judgment, addressed a fundamental question in trademark law: Can a common name be protected as a trademark?

The Court emphasized two central doctrines in assessing trademark eligibility:

1. Inherent Distinctiveness: A mark is inherently distinctive if, by its very nature, it is capable of identifying the origin of goods or services.
2. Secondary Meaning: A mark not inherently distinctive may still qualify for protection if, through consistent and exclusive use, it becomes associated in the minds of consumers with a specific source.

In this case, the Court found that the plaintiff had used the name “NEHA” in connection with their products for a prolonged period, had established brand recognition, and presented substantial evidence of consumer association with the brand.

“Even a widely used first name can enjoy legal protection if it transcends its generic identity and becomes a badge of origin,” the Court noted.

---

Implications of the Judgment

This decision holds far-reaching implications:

• Brand Strategy: Businesses using personal names must now realize that such names can, over time, become protectable trademarks.
• Entrepreneurial Protection: Startups or entrepreneurs using names like “NEHA,” “RAHUL,” or “PRIYA” for their services or products should consider filing for trademark registration and investing in long-term brand development.
• Litigation Awareness: Entities attempting to leverage common names in similar commercial domains must assess potential infringement risks, especially where such names have acquired secondary meaning.

---

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s recognition that common personal names are not automatically barred from trademark protection is a significant evolution in Indian IP law. The decision not only harmonizes Indian jurisprudence with international standards (like those seen in the US and UK) but also enhances legal clarity for brands built around names.

As names evolve into brand identities, this ruling provides a critical legal foundation for enforcing exclusive rights over them, provided the brand owner can demonstrate distinctiveness or market recognition.

---

Also Read

• Legal Manager/Senior Manager at SBI Securities (Mumbai, Full-Time)
• Paid Legal Internship at Pocket FM (June–August 2025, Remote, ₹ Stipend)
• Call for Papers: IJLAE (Online, ₹800 Fee, ISSN: 2584-2196)
• Drafting Contracts Using AI Tools by Bettering Results (₹99, Certificate)
• International Conference on Global Convergence (13–14 Sept, Colombo, Hybrid)
• 4th MAIMS Mock Trial Competition, 2025 (Delhi, Hybrid, ₹95,000 Prizes)
• Initiative to connect youth with industry