Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th October, 2024
THE ARYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Mohammad Atif Ahmad and
Ms. Somesa Gupta, Advocates
Through: None
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff, passing off and other ancillary reliefs.
PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT
2. The plaintiff is an educational institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The plaintiff runs a school in the name of “The Aryan School” situated in Dehradun, Uttarakhand,which is an internationally renowned English Medium day boarding, weekly boarding and residential school affiliated to the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations (I.S.C.E & I.C.S) Board, New Delhi.The plaintiff has been running the said school since 2001.
3. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the following trademarks:
1. 2022969 41 14th November, 2018
2. 2022915 41 14th November, 2018 The certificates for use in Legal Proceedings are filed as Document no. 2 of the documents filed along with the plaint. All the aforesaid registrations remain valid and subsisting.
4. It is stated that the plaintiff has bonafidely adopted the aforementioned marks since 2001 and has been using it uninterruptedly and extensively in India as well as in the other jurisdictions around the world in respect of educational services. Therefore, the aforementioned marks have come to be exclusively associated with the plaintiff.
5. Additionally, the plaintiff is the registrant of the domain name ‘www.thearyanschool.com’ which provides a platform for the parents and the students to receive information about the plaintiff school. The screenshots of the said website are provided in document 5 of the plaint.
6. It is stated that the plaintiff’s mark has strong presence on various social media platform including Instagram and Facebook, wherein the plaintiff uses its marks extensively. Moreover, the plaintiff’s school has a Wikipedia page dedicated to it wherein details about the plaintiff with its logo have been provided, asserting that the rights over the brand name ‘The Aryan School’ is exclusively with the plaintiff.
7. The plaintiff has provided the details of its sales turnover from the financial year 2018-19 to 2022-23 in paragraph 24 of the plaint. It is pertinent to note that in the financial year 2022-23, the sales turnover of the plaintiff was to the tune of Rs.13.71 crores. The advertisement and promotional expenses incurred by the plaintiff are provided in paragraph 20 of the plaint. In 2022-23, the plaintiff has spent more than Rs.32 lakhs in promoting its educational institution.
8. The defendant is a school by the name of “Aaryan International School” under the Choudhary Jagmohan Singh Memorial Educational & Welfare Societywhich is situated in New Delhi, at Phase 1A, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi – 110059, having its affiliation with CBSE under affiliation I.D. 2730641.
9. It is stated that the word elements in the defendant’s impugned mark “Aaryan International School” and “ ” are deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark. The defendant has been using the words ‘Aryan’ in their impugned mark by just adding an extra ‘A’ in the beginning making it ‘Aaryan’, which is identical to the dominant element of the plaintiff’s marks.
10. It is also stated that the defendant has no association with the plaintiff and the inferior quality of services provided by the defendant is diluting the plaintiff’s rights in the registered trade marks, thereby infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff.
11. On 1st October, 2023 and 2nd October, 2023, a conference was organised at Eros Hotel, New Delhi by the plaintiff to facilitate the admission process between the students and their parents. The said conference was visited by numerous students and their parents who were interested in seeking admission in the plaintiff school. In the conference, one of the parents raised a query regarding branch of the plaintiff’s school in Delhi or other parts of India quoting the defendant and other infringing schools. Thereafter the Plaintiff conducted investigation and came to know that various entities are infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff and using identical / similar / deceptively similar mark for similar services as that of plaintiff, hence the Plaintiff is taking action against them.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
12. On 18th January, 2024, this Court issued summons in the suit and the notice in the application filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] seeking interim injunction against the defendant from using the trade mark of the plaintiff.
13. On 18th March, 2024, the order passed by the Joint Registrar noted that the defendant has been duly served with summons [through email on 1st February, 2024 and through email on 15th February, 2024]and despite service none appeared on behalf of the defendant. Moreover, no written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant.
14. On 2nd September, 2024, this Court noted that the maximum permissible period of 120 days to file the written statement of the defendant had expired. Consequently, the right to file written statement of the defendant was closed and the defendant was proceeded ex parte.
15. The plaintiffs now seek a decree in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16. I have heard the submissions of Mr. Varun Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and also perused the material on record.
17. In Satya Infrastructure Ltd. &Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del) [CS(OS) 1213/2011, decided on 07.02.2013], a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:-
18. The plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the defendant in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, in my opinion this suit does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.
19. From the averments made in the plaint and the evidence on record, the plaintiff has been able to prove that it is the registered proprietor of the trademarks and.
20. The plaintiff has placed on record images of the defendant’s school, defendant’s visiting card and social media accounts of the defendant to show that the defendant is indulging in infringement and passing off the plaintiffs’ registered mark. A comparison between the mark of the plaintiff and the defendant is given below: PLAINTIFF’S MARK DEFENDANT’S MARK “Aaryan International School”
21. The comparison above categorically shows that the defendant is using a mark which is identical, and bears phonetic and deceptive similarities to that of the plaintiff. The impugned mark, “Aaryan International School”, is clearly used as the trade name of the defendant’s school and its logo. The description of the defendant’s services reveals that its services are identical to those of the plaintiff’s services, i.e., educational services.
22. In Ritnand Baldev Education Foundation v. Ranchhod M. Shah & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11910 [CS (COMM) 236/2016, decided on October 16, 2018], another bench of this court held that use of a name that is identical or deceptively similar in the education sector can lead to significant confusion among students, parents, potential collaborators, and educational authorities. The Court highlighted that such confusion could have serious implications, potentially harming students' careers. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:
has to be avoided at all costs. This would apply with greater force in the field of education. Clearly when the injunction was suspended, it was done so on the basis of the submission that the Defendant No. 6 school was in existence in 1986. After the filing of the pleadings and documents, it is clear that this is not the correct position. Insofar as Defendant No. 6 is concerned, it came to existence in 2004 i.e. 13 years after the Plaintiffs ‘AMITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL’.”
23. Clearly, the law laid down in Ritnand Baldev Education (supra) will be squarely applicable to present case as well. The defendant by using the impugned mark “Aaryan International School” is seeking to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff school “The Aryan School” which is phonetically and visually similar to that of the plaintiff. The striking similarity between the mark and identical nature of services is likely to mislead students and parents into believing that the defendant school is affiliated with the plaintiff.
24. Based on the discussion above, a clear case of infringement of trademark and copyright is made out. The defendant has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs’ trademark/artistic work and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks without any plausible explanation. Therefore, the plaintiffs have established a case of passing off as well.
25. At this stage, it may be relevant to note that the defendant did not appear before the Court, despite service of summons on 1st February, 2024 via speed post and 15th February, 2024 via email. Further, no communication on behalf of the defendant has been placed on record in respect of the allegations of the plaintiff in this suit. Hence, the right to file written statements for all the defendants was closed on 2nd September, 2024.
26. Since the defendant has failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, it is evident that they have no defence to put forth on merits.
RELIEF
27. In view of the foregoing analysis, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the plaint. The said clauses read as follows: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant: a) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, and all other acting for and on behalf of the Defendant, from operating a school or any other institution with similar services using the Impugned mark or any identical/similar/deceptively similar mark as that of the Plaintiff’s mark; b) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, and all others acting for and on behalf of the Defendant, from advertising, marketing, promoting, and offering, whether directly or indirectly, and whether on the Internet or otherwise, any goods/services bearing the Impugned mark or any other mark identical/similar/deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark, and from otherwise using the dominant element of the Plaintiff’s mark i.e. “The Aryan School” or “Aryan” or the device of sun as part of their business logo, in advertising, marketing or promotional materials, or in any incidental business, thereby resulting in violation of the Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights in the Plaintiff’s mark; c) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, and all others acting for, and on behalf of, the Defendant from doing any act that amount to infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademark; d) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, and all others acting for, and on behalf of, the Defendant from doing any act that amounts to infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright in the Plaintiff’s mark; e) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, and all others acting for, and on behalf of the Defendant from doing any act that amounts to dilution and/or passing off of the Plaintiff’s mark”
28. Insofar as the relief of damages as sought in prayer clause (k) is concerned, reference may be made to the judgment in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Satish Kumar, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1378. The relevant observations are set out below:
29. In light of the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the defendant’s conduct not only warrants, but also necessitates the imposition of both costs and aggravated damages. Thus, in addition to decree passed in the terms already mentioned above, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances presented in this case, the Court also awards damages and costs amounting to INR 5,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
30. Let the decree sheet be drawn up.
31. All pending applications stand disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J OCTOBER 25, 2024