Dav College Managing Committee vs Dav Sr Secondary School ¿¿¿Ii
2014 Latest Caselaw 2135 Del

8

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  FAO 151/2012 & CM 6159/2012 (Stay)


%                                                         29th April, 2014

      DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE             ..... Appellant
                   Through Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
                   Advocates

                   versus
      DAV SR SECONDARY SCHOOL -II              ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Rohan Narang, Advocate for Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. On the last date of hearing i.e 28.2.2014, the following order was

passed:

"Counsel for the respondent is not well. At request, adjourned to 29 th April,

2014. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date

of hearing."

2. Even today, once again an adjournment is sought and which

adjournment is very strenuously opposed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff

as the respondent/defendant is wrongly using the registered trademark

"DAV" of the appellant/plaintiff.

3. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the appellant/plaintiff

is running various schools under the trademark "DAV" and these schools are

run throughout the country and are over 700 in number. The right of the

appellant/plaintiff to the trademark "DAV" with respect to education is

therefore impeccable and unimpeachable. "DAV" are the initials with

respect to Dayanand Anglo Vedic education. Respondent is also admittedly

in the same field of education, and clearly therefore there is bound to be

confusion and the respondent/defendant cannot use the famous and well

established trademark owned by the appellant/plaintiff, namely, "DAV".

4. In view of the above, appellant/plaintiff has a prima facie case in its

favour. Grave irreparable injury will be caused not only to the

appellant/plaintiff but also to the students who are receiving education

through the schools/educational institutions which are being run by

appellant/plaintiff and which as stated are 700 in number. There is also a

threat of deception to unwary students who may think that

respondent/defendant is part of the appellant/plaintiff group.

5. The appellant/plaintiff are using the trademark "DAV" since 1886 i.e

over 100 years, I may note that it is well known that DAV

schools/educational institutions are being run throughout the country, and

appellant/plaintiff has otherwise established the same for the purpose of the

injunction.

6. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned

judgment of the court below dated 28.11.2011 is set aside. The application

of the applicant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is allowed and the

respondent/defendant is restrained from using the trademark "DAV" or any

other deceptively similar mark in any manner with respect to educational

institutions/schools being run by the respondent/defendant.

7. The appeal and application for stay are accordingly allowed and

disposed of.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 29, 2014 godara