Section 35 of the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999 disentitles a proprietor of a registered trademark to interfere with any bona fide use by a person of his own name. Hitherto, however, courts in different parts of the country have been protecting proprietors of those trademarks which happen to be a name, surname or a full name from other persons whose name, surname or full name happened to be identical or similar. In the case of Precious Jewels v. Varun Gems, the Supreme Court of India, however, upheld the provisions of section 35. Earlier, in the Delhi High Court, the registered proprietors of the trademark ‘RAKYAN’ in respect of jewellery had obtained injunction orders against another entity using the mark ‘Neena and Ravi Rakyan’ in respect of jewellery business. What appears to have favoured the plaintiff in the Delhi High Court at the time of obtaining the interim injunction was the fact that the defendant had set up business next to the plaintiff’s shop bearing the sign board ‘RAKYAN’. After considering the facts, the Supreme Court decided that in light of the provisions of section 35 of the Trademark Act, the injunction order was not just and proper since the defendants carried on business in their own name and their bona fides were not disputed. There was also no similarity in the hoardings of the respective shops excepting the use of the name “RAKYAN”. The interim injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court was therefore set aside.