Ram Krishan And Sons Charitable ... vs Groupnet Education & Welfare ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 696 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     CS(OS) 1893/2011

                   Judgment delivered on: 1st February, 2012


RAM KRISHAN AND SONS CHARITABLE TRUST      ..... Plaintiff
                        Through   Mr.Navin Chawla, Ms.Shikha
                                  Sachdev and Mr.Bharat
                                  Arora, Advs.


                   versus


GROUPNET EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY..... Defendants
                       Through -

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR:


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent

injunction, restraining infringement of registered trademark,

passing off, unfair competition, damages and rendition of

accounts.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a

duly registered trust engaged in the field of providing educational

services and is running various institutes in the field of

Management Studies, Pharmacy and Engineering Studies, etc

under a coined trade name "Institute for Integrated Learning in

Management" i.e "IILM" as a prefix to all the institutes managed

by the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that alongwith

the trademark IILM, the plaintiff also coined the house device and

the rising sun logo , along with the shield logo which is used by it

as a logo to distinguish its educational institutes from those of

third parties.

3. The plaintiff is running a number of educational institutes as

detailed in para 3 of the plaint. As per the plaintiff, the trademark

IILM is not a dictionary word and is inherently distinctive and

qualifies to be a well known trademark under section 2(g) of the

of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff also operates websites

i.e www.iilm.edu , www.iilm.in, www.iilm.ac.in and has also got

the said domain names registered on 06.05.1998, 16.2.2005 and

10.2.2003 respectively. The plaintiff has also obtained trade mark

registrations in respect of the mark IILM and its logo as has been

detailed in para 7 of the plaint.

4. It is also stated by the plaintiff that it was shocked to

see the advertisement of the defendant in the Trade Mark Journal

wherein the defendant in order to confuse the general public and

create an impression of being associated with the plaintiff has

adopted the trademark NILM, Northern Institute of Learning and

Management alongwith the rising sun and house device with the

entire emphasis on the trademark NILM and the rising sun and

the house device and has applied for registration of the same

with the Registrar of Trade Marks. It has further been stated by

the plaintiff that it immediately through its attorneys filed a

notice of opposition opposing the registration of the said trade

mark and caused a brief investigation to be conducted in the

matter.

5. It has further been stated that it was revealed from

the said investigation that the defendant had recently started

running an educational institute by the name of NILM alongwith

the house device and the rising sun logo. The plaintiff has further

stated that the investigation also disclosed that the defendant

also has an institute with the name of NIET , Northern Institute of

Engineering and Technology with the entire emphasis on NIET,

the house device and the rising sun logo.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant by

using the said trademark and tradename is passing off its goods

and services as that of the plaintiff and the defendant has

adopted the offending trademark/tradename for its educational

institutes by copying in an attempt to cash upon the goodwill of

the plaintiff.

7. Vide orders dated 5.8.2011, summons were issued to

defendant no.2 for 2.9.2011 and thereafter vide order dated

2.9.2011 the defendant was proceeded exparte. The plaintiff filed

its exparte evidence by way of an affidavit of Shri O.P Sharma

PW1, who was authorized to depose by the Board of Resolution

passed by the trust, exhibited as PW1/1. The present suit has

been filed through Mr.R.L Choudhry who was authorized to file

and pursue the present suit on behalf of plaintiff vide Board Of

Resolution exhibited as PW 1/2.

8. The plaintiff has placed on record (PW1/4 to PW1/8)

copies of the different prospectuses of the plaintiff's institutes

having the name of IILM. The plaintiffs holds the registration of

the trademark IILM and has filed the registration certificates

issued by the registry for use in legal proceedings as PW1/10 of

the trademark registered as IILM with half moon sign in class 41

having registration number 1253399 and IILM with house device

and rising sun logo having registration number 1253401 in class

41 of education, providing of training, entertainment, sporting

and cultural activities. The plaintiff has also placed on record as

PW1/16 TM-5, the notice of opposition to the application of the

defendant for registration of the trademark with the rising sun

logo and the house device. PW1/18 is the prospectus of the

defendant's institute i.e NILM with the rising sun logo and the

house device. PW1/17 is the visiting card of Mr.Praven Garg, the

President of the defendant group which has on the reverse the

rising sun and the house device logo. The plaintiff has also

placed on record (PW1/20) the cease and desist notice dated

17.12.2010 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is the stand

of the plaintiff in the plaint that the said notice was delivered to

the defendant but was not replied to.

9. The plaintiff in the affidavit filed by Mr. O.P Sharma,

reiterated the averments made in the plaint. By an additional

affidavit filed Mr.O.Psharma, he has proved on record the

registration granted to the rising sun and house device in class

16 and 35 and also the registration of IILM in class 9,16 and 35.

10. The evidence filed by the plaintiff herein has gone

unrebutted. The defendant has neither contested the suit nor

filed its written statement; therefore, this court is of eth

considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of

permanent injunction against the defendant in terms of para 24,

A(i) (ii)(iii) and (iv) of the plaint. The suit of the plaintiff is

accordingly decreed with cost.

11. Let the decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J FEBRUARY 1, 2012