Tripura High Court: Accused Not Entitled to Bail on Mere Filing of Chargesheet  ||  Guj. HC: Student Allowed to Write Exams, Shortage of Attendance Condoned  ||  Ker. HC: AO Can’t Reopen Assessment in Block Period of 6 Years if Absence of Incriminating Materials  ||  Tel. HC: Existence & Validity of Arb. Agreement Must be Determined u/s 11(6) of A&C Act by Court  ||  Tel. HC: While Releasing Amount Under S. 19 of MSME Act, Reasons Must be Assigned by Courts  ||  Ker. HC: Settling Serious Crimes Like Murder, Rape Would Seriously Impact Society  ||  Del. HC: Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal Can be Extended by Court, Even After its Expiry  ||  Utt. HC: Conditional Liberty Must Override Statutory Embargo Under NDPS Act  ||  Utt. HC: While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction, HC Does Not Function As Court of Appeal or Revision  ||  Pat. HC: Alcohol Consumption Cannot be Conclusively Proved Through Breath Analyzer Report    

Ram Krishan & Sons Charitable Trust v. ILM Consulting Pvt. Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (17 May 2017)

Registered proprietor of trademark has exclusive right to use said trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which trade mark is registered


Intellectual Property Rights

Case of Plaintiff is that, it is a registered Trust and is engaged in field of providing educational services and running various Senior Secondary Schools, Management Institutes, Engineering College, Pharmacy College etc. Plaintiff set up a school in year 1986 and a management institute by name of "Institute for Integrated Learning in Management" i.e. IILM in year 1993. That Plaintiff is very well known in field of education and has a distinctive name and fame in that field. It has a registered trademark "IILM" and 'IILM Foundation' and also logo of IILM Law School. It has been extensively using said trademark and also advertising under said logo and trade mark. It is contended that, by virtue of extensive sales promotions and activities in respect of its education institutes, "IILM" is synonymous only with the Plaintiff. It has also earned good will, reputation and fame. In year 2013, Plaintiff came to know that, Defendant is using trademark ILM which is identical/deceptively similar to that of Plaintiffs trademark IILM. It is submitted that, since Defendant's academy is also engaged in educational and employment opportunities, public at large feels that, it is extension of Plaintiffs academy/institution. Plaintiff prayed that, Defendant, it's directors, principles, proprietor, partner, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees representatives and assigns be restrained by way of ad-interim injunction from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising or using trade mark ILM which is similar to Plaintiffs registered trade mark IILM and also websites, and

Plaintiff led ex-parte evidence and examined Mr. Anil Kanodia in order to prove its case. Witness has duly proved on record Trust deed dated 30th October, 1980 and has also proved registration certificates of trademark IILM and its logo vide documents. Witness has also proved on record its brochure and prospectus. He has also proved approval from AICTE vide documents for establishment of plaintiffs College of Engineering and IILM Academy of Higher Learning at Greater Noida and for an integrated course and for College of Management Studies.

Plaintiff has successfully proved that, it is a Charitable Trust and that it is owner of registered trademark IILM and its logo and also running websites and had circulated its brochure and prospectus. Petitioner's witness has also clearly stated that, Plaintiff enjoys goodwill and reputation in educational field and is maintaining a high standard and that is why public at large in India prefers their institution. It qualifies to be well known trademark and as soon as anybody takes name of IILM, it is Plaintiffs institution which comes to mind of public. Witness has also proved that, general public while surfing internet, may come across Defendant's website i.e which is deceptively similar to that of Plaintiffs websites i.e., and and would think that, they are surfing Plaintiffs websites because Defendant is also engaged in an educational field including placement of students and providing them with educational and employment opportunities.

Plaintiffs witness has proved on record that, Defendant is using said websites and also using abbreviation ILM for their academy, both are deceptively similar to that of registered trademark of Plaintiff and its websites. Section 28 of Trademarks Act, 1999 clearly envisages that, registered proprietor of trademark has exclusive right to use said trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which trade mark is registered. Section 29 (1) of Trademarks Act, 1999 clearly states that, where a person infringes a registered trademark of a proprietor which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, trade mark in relation to services or goods in respect of which trademark is registered, then they are infringing rights of registered owner of said trademark.

Trademark of Plaintiff is "IILM" and one which Defendant is using as "ILM". Court is satisfied that, Defendant is using deceptively similar trademark of Plaintiff and since, it is also in business of education and running an academy for providing students with educational and employment opportunities. Defendant is also using website which is also deceptively similar to that of Plaintiff's websites. Right of Plaintiff has been infringed and therefore, Plaintiff has a right to protect his trademark. Accordingly, suit is decreed and by way of ex-parte order, Defendant, it's directors, principles, proprietors, partners, representative, assigns are restrained from selling, using, manufacturing, advertising the institute under the trade mark ILM or any other identical or deceptively similar name to the plaintiffs institute 'IILM' in respect of providing educational opportunities to students and are also restrained from using website with domain name


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved