DAV College Managing Committee v. DAV SR Secondary School –II

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 29th April,

2014. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.” 2014:DHC:2223

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