Delhi High Court
Triumphant Institute Of ... vs Mahesh Yadav & Anr. on 28 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) No. 934/2016 & I.A 10996/2016
% 28th November, 2017
TRIUMPHANT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Bitika Sharma and Mr.
Lakshay Kaushik, Advocates.
versus
MAHESH YADAV & ANR. ..... Defendants
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs
of injunction restraining the defendants from violating the rights in the
trademark 'T.I.M.E' (Triumphant Institute of Management Education)
of the plaintiff. Causes of action are also pleaded and reliefs claimed
for injunction on the basis of the defendants passing off the trademark
of the plaintiff with respect to the services in question. Plaintiff also
pleads unfair competition, dilution etc as also seeks reliefs of rendition
of accounts and damages.
CS(COMM) No. 934/2016 Page 1 of 4
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the owner of
the trademark 'T.I.M.E' and which are initials drawn from the name of
the plaintiff company which is Triumphant Institute of Management
Education Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff pleads that it is engaged in the business
for providing of services of a coaching institute and training centers
having about 244 centers and branches in over 116 cities and towns in
India. Plaintiff offers training for national level examinations such as
CAT, Bank, GATE, IIT JEE examination etc. Plaintiff pleads that it
adopted the trademark 'T.I.M.E' in the year 1992 and thereafter has
been regularly using this trademark for coaching services. Plaintiff has
got registered the trademark as under:-
S No. Trademark Reg.no/App.No. Class
1. T.I.M.E Triumphant 1343168 41
Institute of Management
Education (word mark)
2. T.I.M.E (Triumphant 1408314 41
Institute of Management
Education (Logo)
3. T.I.M.E. KIDS (LOGO) 2109877 41
4. T.I.M.E 1725338 16
3. As per the plaint, plaintiff pleads that it came to know for
the first time in July 2016 of the existence of the defendants on
account of a newspaper advertisement inserted on 6.7.2016 in the
newspaper Dainik Bhaskar wherein the defendants were found to have
CS(COMM) No. 934/2016 Page 2 of 4
adopted an identical trademark TIME and for same coaching services.
It is pleaded that the defendants have no right to use the trademark
TIME which is identical or nearly identical with the registered
trademark T.I.M.E of the plaintiff.
4. Defendants have been served in the suit but they have not
appeared and hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
19.1.2017. Plaintiff has thereafter filed its affidavit by way of
evidence and proved its case.
5. A reference to the affidavit by way of evidence filed on
behalf of the plaintiff shows that authorization for filing of a suit is in
terms of the Board of Resolution dated 10.7.2017 which has been
proved as Ex.PW1/1. The trademark registrations of the plaintiff have
been proved as Ex.PW1/3. Plaintiff has proved its goodwill and
reputation by filing its business turn over in terms of the Chartered
Accountant Certificate which is proved as Ex.PW1/6. The Chartered
Accountant Certificate indicating the turnover and the promotional
advertising expenditure of the plaintiff is proved as Ex.PW1/7. The
factum with respect to the defendants advertising their services under
more or less identical trademark being TIME/Time Institute is proved
CS(COMM) No. 934/2016 Page 3 of 4
by the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 6.7.2016 as Ex.PW1/8. In
view of the evidence led by the plaintiff, in my opinion, plaintiff has
made out a case that the defendants are infringing the trademark of the
plaintiff T.I.M.E and the defendants are passing off their services as
that of the plaintiff. Facts
proved on record establish that the
defendants intend to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the
plaintiff as for similar services by using identical/nearly identical
trademark TIME/Time Institute.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press the relief
with respect to the rendition of accounts/damages.
7. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed against the defendants. Defendants are restrained from in any
manner using the trademark TIME/Time Institute or any other
trademark which is identical, nearly identical or deceptively similar to
the trademark T.I.M.E of the plaintiff. Plaintiff will be entitled to costs
of the suit. Decree sheet be drawn.
NOVEMBER 28, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
