Ram Krishan & Sons Charitable ... vs Ilm Consulting Pvt Ltd.
2017 Latest Caselaw 2461 Del

$~1
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Reserved on: 21.03.2017
                                          Decided on : 17.05.2017

+      CS(COMM) 136/2016 & I.A. 13627/2013

       RAM KRISHAN & SONS CHARITABLE TRUST...... Plaintiff
                              Through:    Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate.

                              versus

       ILM CONSULTING PVT LTD.                           .......Defendant

                              Through:    Defendant is ex-parte.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

       JUDGMENT

1. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a registered Trust and is

engaged in the field of providing educational services and running

various Senior Secondary Schools, Management Institutes,

Engineering College, Pharmacy College etc. The plaintiff set up a

school in the year 1986 and a management institute by the name of

"Institute for Integrated Learning in Management" i.e. IILM in the

year 1993. That the plaintiff is very well known in the field of

CS (COMM) 136/2016 Page 1 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 the said trademark

and also advertising under the 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.

2. In the year 2013, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant

is using trademark ILM which is identical/deceptively similar to that

of plaintiff‟s trademark IILM. The defendant is using the said

trademark for consulting services to educational institutions and for

promoting professional education and employability skill practices.

The defendant is also running the placement and recruitment program

and operating a website in the name www.ilmcampus.com which is

also identical and deceptively similar to plaintiff‟s websites,

www.iilm.edu, www.iilm.in and www.iilm.ac.in .

3. It is submitted that since the defendant‟s academy is also

engaged in the educational and employment opportunities, the public

at large feels that it is the extension of the plaintiff‟s

CS (COMM) 136/2016 Page 2 academy/institution. The notice dated 02.07.2013 was sent to the

defendant asking them to desist from using the abbreviation ILM.

The notice however was received back as undelivered. It is submitted

that the plaintiff is suffering financial loss and also loss in the

reputation due to the infringement of their trademark by the

defendant. It is further submitted that plaintiff is carrying on business

within the jurisdiction of this Court. On these facts, it is prayed that

the 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 the trade mark

ILM which is similar to the plaintiff‟s registered trade mark IILM and

also the websites www.iilm.edu, www.iilm.in and www.iilm.ac.in.

4. The summons were issued to the defendant which were duly

served but none on its behalf had attended the Court proceedings and

they were proceeded ex-parte vide order of this Court dated

07.05.2014.

5. The plaintiff led ex-parte evidence and examined Mr. Anil

Kanodia in order to prove its case. The witness has duly proved on

CS (COMM) 136/2016 Page 3 record the Trust deed dated 30.10.1980 as Ex. PW- 1/1 and has also

proved the registration certificates of the trademark IILM and its logo

vide documents Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW -1/7 and Ex. PW -1/11. The

trademark of IILM Foundation is proved as Ex. PW- 1/8 to Ex. PW -

1/10. The printout of the plaintiff‟s websites is proved as Ex. PW -

1/31 and that of defendant‟s website as Ex. PW- 1/48. The

defendant‟s advertisement on social networks is also proved as Ex.

PW- 1/49. The witness has also proved on record its brochure and

prospectus as Ex. PW -1/32 to Ex. PW- 1/46. He has also proved the

approval from AICTE vide documents Ex. PW- 1/13 to Ex. PW -1/22

for establishment of plaintiff‟s College of Engineering and IILM

Academy of Higher Learning at Greater Noida and for an integrated

course as Ex. PW -1/23 and for College of Management Studies as

Ex. PW 1/25 to PW 1/29.

6. I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.

7. The plaintiff has successfully proved that it is a Charitable

Trust and that it is the owner of the registered trademark IILM and its

logo and also running the websites as Ex. PW 1/31 and had circulated

its brochure and prospectus. The petitioner‟s witness has also clearly

CS (COMM) 136/2016 Page 4 stated that the plaintiff enjoys goodwill and reputation in the

educational field and is maintaining a high standard and that is why

the public at large in India prefers their institution. It qualifies to be

well known trademark and as soon as anybody takes the name of

IILM, it is the plaintiff‟s institution which comes to the mind of the

public. The witness has also proved that general public while surfing

the internet, may come across the defendant‟s website i.e

www.ilmcampus.com which is deceptively similar to that of

plaintiff‟s websites i.e. www.iilm.edu, www.iilm.in and

www.iilm.ac.in and would think that they are surfing the plaintiff‟s

websites because the defendant is also engaged in an educational field

including the placement of the students and providing them with

educational and employment opportunities.

8. The plaintiff‟s witness has proved on record that the defendant

is using the said websites and also using the abbreviation ILM for

their academy, both are deceptively similar to that of registered

trademark of the plaintiff and its websites. Section 28 of the

Trademarks Act, 1999 clearly envisages that the registered proprietor

of the trademark has the exclusive right to use the said trademark in

CS (COMM) 136/2016 Page 5 relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is

registered. Section 29 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 clearly states

that where a person infringes a registered trademark of a proprietor

which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in

relation to services or goods in respect of which the trademark is

registered, then they are infringing the rights of the registered owner

of the said trademark.

9. The trademark of the plaintiff is "IILM" and one which the

defendant is using as "ILM" and I am satisfied that the defendant is

using the deceptively similar trademark of the plaintiff and since it is

also in the business of education and running an academy for

providing students with educational and employment opportunities.

Defendant is also using the website which is also deceptively similar

to that of the plaintiff‟s websites. I am satisfied that the right of the

plaintiff has been infringed and therefore the plaintiff has a right to

protect his trademark. Accordingly, the suit is decreed and by way of

this ex-parte order, the defendant, it‟s directors, principles,

proprietors, partners, representative, assigns are hereby restrained

from selling, using, manufacturing, advertising the institute under the

CS (COMM) 136/2016 Page 6 trade mark ILM or any other identical or deceptively similar name to

the plaintiff‟s institute „IILM‟ in respect of providing educational

opportunities to students and are also restrained from using website

with the domain name www.ilmcampus.com.

Decree sheet be prepared. No order as to cost.

                                                         DEEPA SHARMA
                                                            (JUDGE)
MAY 17, 2017
ss




CS (COMM) 136/2016                                                    Page 7