High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition preferred against the order dated 16th September, 2019 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Patiala House District Court, Delhi. By the impugned order, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Brief Facts:
The suit relates to the trademark ‘ADIT’ which the Plaintiff/Appellant- The Chartered Institute of Taxation has objected to. It is the case of the Plaintiff that it has the superior rights in the trademark ‘ADIT’, by virtue of priority in adoption and use of the said trademark in respect of its goods and/or services since the year 2003. The Plaintiff administers and awards two qualifications: the "Advanced Diploma in International Taxation" (ADIT) for international tax professionals around the world, and the "Chartered Tax Adviser" (CTA) qualification for domestic tax practitioners in the United Kingdom. Membership is awarded on passing the Appellant's/Plaintiffs examinations and completing specified practical taxation experience. The qualifications granted by the Plaintiff are stated to be the 'gold standard' in the field of tax education. On the last date, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Defendant. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent- Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd. Taxation had given an assurance to the effect that no course under the trademark 'ADIT' shall be launched by the Defendant, till the next date.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Defendant has established companies which have similar names, in an attempt to mislead the general public, as though they are established under an Act of Parliament.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that it is clear to this Court that the excuse of engaging a new counsel has been taken by the Defendant only to avoid the hearing. In these circumstances, the request for adjournment is clearly an excuse which is not liable to be entertained.
HC stated that considering the nature of the dispute and the trademark ‘ADIT’ which was first adopted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant who is also using the name ‘Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd.’, cannot be allowed to launch a course under a name which is identical to that of the Plaintiff. Moreover, the use of the word CHARTERED also seek to suggest some association with the Plaintiff. The Defendant is clearly a private company which has no connection with the Plaintiff.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “use of a name which is similar coupled with the use of the mark ADIT is likely to cause enormous harm to students and prospective candidates who may avail of the course of the Defendant under the mistaken impression that the Defendant is connected or affiliated with the Plaintiff. The Defendant and all others acting for and on its behalf are restrained from using the trademark ‘ADIT’ for any course which they are presently offering or may offer in future, during the pendency of the suit. In respect of the names of the seven companies which, as per the Plaintiff are objectionable, the Plaintiff is permitted to avail of the remedies, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16th September, 2019 is set aside.”
Case Title: The Chartered Institute of Taxation v. Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd.
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Citation: FAO-IPD 6/2022 & CM APPL. 3510/2022
Decided on: 29th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
