Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th September, 2023
DPMI VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED.... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Mr. Mohit Gupta, Mr. Aditya Chauhan & Ms. Seemab Ali Fatima Advocates.
Through: Mr Vikas Khera, Mr Vishal Sharan and Mr Darpan, Advocates (M-
9990886397)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Plaintiff-DPMI Vocational Institute Private Limited has filed the present suit, seeking permanent injunction, restraining Defendant- Delhi Paramedical Institute from using the trade mark “DPMI” or any other mark which is identical/or deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s mark.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that, the Para Medical Technology Society of India was established in the year 1996 for looking after the management and administration of vocational training and education, imparted by the Delhi Paramedical and Management Institute which was a proprietary concern of Mr. Vinod Bachheti. The said Institute continued as a proprietorship concern from 1996 to 2015. During this period, the trade mark, “DPMI” which was the acronym of the full name of the Institute as also its variants were adopted and used by Mr. Vinod Bachheti.
4. At that stage, the plaintiff company was incorporated as a Company with two promoters and directors, namely, Ms. Poonam Bachheti and Mr. Vinod Bachheti. The National Skill Development Corporation appointed the plaintiff as the approved training partner. The Plaintiff is also associated with the Skill India Mission. The Plaintiff claims rights not only in the mark “DPMI”, but also in respect of the names - PMTS of India and the full form of DPMI viz., Delhi Paramedical & Management Institute.
5. The Plaintiff provides professional education to 10 + 2, Graduate and Post Graduate levels, for candidates who are aspiring to undertake programmes in Paramedical Sciences, Hotel Management, Journalism & Mass Communication, Aviation & Tourism. The Plaintiff provides a large number of para-medical programmes, which have been set out in the plaint and are extracted below:-
PARAMEDICAL PROGRAMS
6. The Plaintiff claims to have 62 branches, which are stated to be spread across various States, namely, Andaman & Nicobar, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal etc.
7. The mark, “DPMI” along with the logo are also registered vide application no. 1876157, under class 41 and 16. The earliest registration dates back to 2009. The details of the same are set out below:-
8. According, to the gross receipts of the Plaintiff, the revenues from operations i.e. sale of services is more than Rupees Four Crores for the year 2021-22 and advertising expenditure has also been placed on record which is around Rs 1,75,000/- for the year 2020-2021. According to the Plaintiff, it is the prior user, adopter and registered proprietor for the mark, “DPMI” and for its services which has built an enviable goodwill through its extensive promotion.
9. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the use of the mark, ‘DPMI’ Institute and full name ‘Delhi Paramedical Institute’ by the Defendant, who is also engaged in the provision of educational services/vocational training, catering to the healthcare sector. The Plaintiff also has the website viz., https://dpmiindia.com/,https://dpmisamastipur.com/,https://dpmibokaro.com /, https://dpmisiliguri.com/.
10. It is the case of the Plaintiff, that the Defendant is running its centre from Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh and owing to the identical mark being used, the Defendant’s centre is being confused with the Plaintiff’s centre. The Defendant is also running its website using the mark DPMI, i.e., https://dpmiinstitute.com/.
11. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s adoption and use of the mark, ‘DPMI’ either in abbreviated form or in the full name, results in infringement, passing off and also is in violation of its rights in the domain names. Hence, an injunction is sought in the present suit.
12. Vide order dated 5th September, 2023, this Court had issued summons and notices to the Defendant. The relevant extract of the order is set out below:
1. 1876157 41 26/10/2009 Registered
2. 3960379 16 29/09/2018 Registered
3. 5553652 41 02/08/2022 Objected
12. In the present case, the Plaintiff’s grievance is that the Defendant is using the identical name “DPMI” along with an almost identical logo which is extracted below:. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant, based out of Delhi, has opened a center in Sikandrabad (Uttar Pradesh), and students are led to believe that the Defendant’s set up is one of the Plaintiff’s branches.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Vishal Sharan, has entered appearance on advance notice, and submits that he received instructions only yesterday and thus, prays for a week's time to file a reply to the present injunction application. He further highlights that the Plaintiff had filed a complaint with the SHO (Ashok Nagar, Delhi) in respect of Defendant’s domain name http://dpmiinstitute.com/ and had also filed a criminal complaint with the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, East, Karkardooma titled DPMI Vocational Institute Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Paramedical Institute Etc. bearing no. CT Cases 1204/2022.
14. He thus submits that the Plaintiff has had knowledge of the Defendant’s activity since 2022, and therefore, a week’s time may be granted to the Defendant, as Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh-the promoter of the Defendant, is also hospitalised.”
13. On the said date, summons were accepted by Mr. Vishal Sharma, ld. counsel, for the Defendant and considering the fact that the Defendant’s institute was in knowledge of Plaintiff since 2022, opportunity was granted to the Defendant to file an affidavit in the following terms:-
14. Today, an affidavit has been placed on record by the Director of the Defendant, namely, Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh, stating that the Delhi Paramedical Institute is not a legal entity and Defendant’s institute is run by the “Netking Institute of Information Technology Private Limited”. It is also stated that “DPMI” is only used as an acronym of Delhi Paramedical Institute since June, 2022.
15. According to the said Director, he received a call from Mr. Vinod Bachheti in August, 2022, objecting to the use and adoption of the name/mark “DPMI”. At that time, the deponent claims to have informed Mr. Bachheti that he is flexible and that he would make the relevant changes. However, thereafter, a call was received from the SHO, PS-Ashok Nagar, that a complaint has been filed by the Plaintiff in the said police station. These facts were not disclosed in the present suit. However, it is submitted now by this affidavit that there were only 12 admissions made by the Defendant-company and the total amount collected was Rs. 3,60,000/-. The Defendant has also stated as under:
16. As per the above affidavit, the Defendant has no objection if the suit is decreed in terms of Paragraphs 62 (a), (b), (c) and (d), provided the Plaintiff does not press for damages and costs. Today, after perusing the affidavit filed by the Defendant and hearing Ld. counsel for the parties, the Court observes that the nature of services are of imparting vocational training to candidates. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff used the full name, “Delhi Paramedical Institute” earlier and now the mark, “DPMI”, in order to avoid any confusion between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, it would be necessary that the mark, “DPMI” and the full name, “Delhi Paramedical Institute” ought not to be used by the Defendant.
17. Mr. Khera, ld. counsel, for the Defendant after taking instructions submit that his client is willing to change the name to “Netking Paramedical Institute”. However, the existing students ought to be permitted to be issued certificates under the name, “Delhi Paramedical Institute”. This proposal is acceptable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, in this background and in view of the submissions made today, with consent of parties, the suit is finally decreed in the following terms: i. A decree is passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in terms of paragraphs 62 (a) and (b) of the plaint. ii. The domain name https://dpmiinstitute.com/ shall not be used by the Defendant and shall be transferred to the Plaintiff within four weeks. The control of the said domain name shall be handed over to the Plaintiff within a week. iii. Insofar as the full name, “Delhi Paramedical Institute” is concerned, the Defendant shall cease the use of said name with effect from 15th October, 2023. iv. In the meantime, the Defendant may apply to the Delhi State Government Paramedical Council, GNCTD to change its name from “Delhi Paramedical Institute” to “Netking Paramedical Institute”. The said approval be processed and be granted within a month by the said Council. v. Insofar as the existing 12 students are concerned, they may be issued certificates under the name, “Delhi Paramedical Institute”, however no fresh admissions shall be made under the said name. vi. Subject to the above terms being accepted and honoured by the Defendants, the Plaintiff does not press for damages or rendition of accounts. vii. The necessary changes shall be carried out on the social media and other online platforms by the Defendant by 15th October, 2023. viii. Subject to honouring of the above terms by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall also withdraw the criminal complaint made in the Police Station- Ashok Nagar, after 15th October, 2023, within a week.
18. In view of the fact that the matter has been amicably resolved in the second hearing itself, Plaintiff is granted refund of the full Court fees as per the judgement of Nutan Batra V. Buniyaad Builders, (2018) 255 DLT 696.
19. Accordingly, decree sheet be drawn in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 vp/KS