New Delhi, March 12 :    New Delhi, March 12:  What's in a name? Lots, if it is Usha and the two corporate houses fighting over it are the Vinay Rai promoted Usha Rectifiers Corporation and the Siddharth Shriram Group Usha International Ltd. In a contempt case filed by Usha International, Delhi High court has, in an early February judgement, asked Usha India Ltd, (earlier name Usha Rectifier Corporation) to henceforth 'indicate...whenever they use the corporate name Usha India Limited....that the said company is not connected with Usha Shriram Group of Industries.' The squabble over the trademark arose about eight years back when Usha Rectifiers changed its name to Usha (India) Limited. Siddharth Shriram-owned Usha International filed a suit against the company to pre-empt the Vinay Rai-owned company from using the Usha brandname. While that original case is still pending, the court had given a temporary injunction to Usha India Limited, restraining it from using the Usha name to sell consumer goods and household appliances. However, this order was partly modified by Supreme Court in 1997, which allowed Usha India to use the corporate name for some specified categories of goods (where Usha Shriram was not present) but directed it to clearly indicate that the company making them was not connected with the Shriram group. The contempt petition was filed by Usha International when the Vinay Rai company failed to comply with this order. However, legal consultants for Usha India Ltd say the original suit is still before the court and Usha International will have to give indemnity for all the years if the case is decided in favour of Usha India. The court order also specifies that it will be incorrect to hold that the respondent is free to use the trade name Usha (India) Limited for product or services other than the specified ones. 'The spirit of the Supreme Court order is to distinguish the two corporate names and not the products in respect of which the corporate name is being used,' the latest Delhi high court order says. Although the respondents claimed that they had not released any advertisements in newspapers in respect of the specified products, the court ruled that the company has to assert that it did not have links with the Shriram group company every time it used its corporate logo or name.