M/S VAJIRAM & RAVI IAS STUDY CENTRE LLP v. M/S VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE PVT. LTD

2.6. Rebutting the allegations concerning the delay in instituting the present suit, Mr. Chandra argued that well-established legal precedents clearly hold that injunctive relief must not be denied merely on account of delay, especially when Defendant’s adoption of the mark is manifestly dishonest.[1] THE DEFENDANT’S VERSION

3. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Counsel for Defendant, strongly resisted the grant of injunction by presenting the following facts:

3.1. In 1995, Mr. S.S. Chaudhary embarked on a mission to make coaching for civil services both accessible and affordable to all, by founding the Defendant-institute, “VAJIRAO & REDDY”, in the city of Agra. Inspired by the valour and leadership of the famed Peshwa-Bajirao, the name “VAJIRAO” was adopted as a tribute to the great leader. Mr. Chaudhary modified the spelling from ‘Bajirao’ to ‘Vajirao’ as a homage to his father, Mr. Vipati Ram, and to signify the concept of victory through the letter ‘V’. Additionally, the name “REDDY” was interwoven into the institute’s trade name in acknowledgment of Professor V.N. Reddy, who had been a significant source of inspiration for Mr. Chaudhary in founding the educational centre. Initially confined to Agra, the Defendant seized the opportunity for growth in the year 2000 and extended its reach by inaugurating a new branch in Delhi.

3.2. The crux of the Plaintiff’s arguments is the assumption that the name “VAJIRAO” is essentially a contraction of “VAJIRAM” and “RAO,” their own former trademark. However, the narrative history explaining the Reliance was placed upon: (a) Laxmikant V Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 65. (b) Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Limited, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744.

(c) M/s Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s India Stationery Products Co. Anr., (1989) SCC OnLine Del

(d) Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 90. (e) Automatic Electric Ltd. v. PK Dhawan and Anr., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27. (f) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 668. coining and adoption of the name “VAJIRAO & REDDY” deflates this theory. As elucidated earlier, the name “VAJIRAO” holds special significance for Mr. S.S. Chaudhary and was chosen for its sentimental value combined with an evocative tribute to the valorous Peshwa leader, Bajirao. Further buttressing the legitimacy of the adoption of the trademark, is the establishment of charitable “Vajirao Shikshan Trust” in 2013 by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, which serves to oversee the functioning and operation of the “Vajirao Degree College” in Agra. Clearly, the name “VAJIRAO” operates as more than just a trade name; it acts as a source-identifier, linking a range of educational activities under its aegis. This underlines the legitimacy and bonafides of the Defendant in the adoption and continued use of the disputed mark. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, known as “VAJIRAM & RAVI”, asserts, without substantiation, that they are commonly referred to as “VAJIRAO”. This allegation, lacking in factual corroboration, cannot be accepted as a valid ground for their claim.

3.3. Defendant has registration for their mark since 2009, with user claim from 2007, as per details given below: S.NO.

APPLICATION NO./ MARK DATE OF APPLICATION CLASS USER CLAIM

1. 1859489 07.09.2009 41 06.06.2007

3.4. Since its inception, the Defendant has made significant investments in cultivating and expanding their brand name. The trademark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” has not merely been a label, but a symbol of quality and success, accruing substantial goodwill over the years. This is exemplified by the commendable achievements of their students in various civil services examinations.

3.5. While the Plaintiff asserts that deceptive similarity exists between the terms “VAJIRAM” and “VAJIRAO,” it is critical to note that their trademark rights are vested in the complete names “VAJIRAM & RAO” or “VAJIRAM & RAVI,” rather than in the isolated term “VAJIRAM.” Legal jurisprudence emphasizes the importance of evaluating trademarks in their entirety when assessing the likelihood of confusion or deception. Upon a holistic comparison, the two competing marks manifest distinctiveness, both phonetically and visually. The Defendant’s mark, “VAJIRAO & REDDY,” registered as a device mark, stands clearly apart from the Plaintiff’s mark “VAJIRAM & RAVI.” The differences are sufficient to dispel any likelihood of misleading either industry professionals or prospective students, who are the target audience for both organizations.

3.6. The Plaintiff’s purported cause of action, which alleges that the Defendant strategically placed a hoarding advertisement opposite the Plaintiff’s premises in 2018, lacks factual accuracy. It is noteworthy that both parties have engaged in parallel advertising campaigns since as early as September 2009. Publications such as Competition Success Review and Civil Services Chronicle, among others, have featured advertisements and interviews from both institutes. This long-standing practice of mutual visibility in the same advertising fora strongly suggests that the Plaintiff was well aware of the Defendant’s operations. Yet, intriguingly, this historical context is conspicuously absent in the plaint. The omission of such critical information implies an acknowledgment of the Defendant’s legitimate presence in the marketplace, casting serious doubts on the Plaintiff’s case. Thus, this evident misrepresentation and the deliberate suppression of material facts, disentitles the Plaintiff to the equitable and discretionary relief they seek in the form of an interim injunction.[2]

3.7. Given that the target consumer base primarily consists of educated individuals, the probability of confusion is minimal. Reliance was placed upon interviews of successful candidates, who referred to the institutions as two separate entities that aided their preparations. Evaluating the distinctiveness of services, in alignment with the criteria delineated in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association and Ors.,[3] the evident disparities between the two institutes virtually eliminate any likelihood of confusion.

3.8. Relying upon the authoritative work – Kerr on Law of Fraud and Mistake,[4] the Defendant posited that even if the Plaintiff claims lack of awareness concerning the Defendant’s operations, the doctrine of constructive notice would still impute such knowledge to them. The instances of simultaneous advertising and shared media exposure over a decade not only imply awareness, but also indicate a level of tacit acceptance by the Plaintiff of the Defendant’s presence in the market. Remarkably, despite numerous opportunities for observation, the Plaintiff remained ostensibly unaware of both their own legal rights and the Defendant’s operations for an extended period of ten years. This prolonged inaction and apparent acquiescence to the Defendant’s business activities Reliance was placed on Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120 and Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 282.

ANALYSIS

4. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant stand on equal legal footing regarding the statutory protection of their trademarks; both are registered proprietors of their respective marks, which are currently in effect and valid. Such registrations entitle them to the exclusive use of their trademark, as stipulated under the Trademarks Act. Pertinently, neither side contends that the registrations were fraudulently obtained, or are in any manner, invalid. Therefore, the Court finds it unnecessary to scrutinize the validity of these trademark registrations. The Plaintiff’s case is principally grounded in allegations of passing off, dilution of their mark, and unfair competition. Consequently, the immediate task before the Court is to determine the merit of the application for grant of interim relief, specifically focusing on the issue of passing off. To reach a conclusion on this matter, the Court identifies the following key questions for examination:

I. DECEPTIVE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE CONTESTING MARKS IN THE

CONTEXT OF PASSING OFF

5. The question of whether two trademarks are “deceptively similar” is a legal evaluation that has to be determined by applying the test of an unwary purchaser having average intelligence and imperfect recollection. A holistic assessment of deceptive similarity would require consideration of the overall impression created by the trademarks alongside other factors, such as the nature of the businesses of the parties, potential for confusion among the target audience or customers, probability of confusion in the market, and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the target consumer group.

6. Banking on their trademark registrations and continued use, the Plaintiff has professed its proprietary rights in the wordmark “VAJIRAM” as well as device and word marks “VAJIRAM & RAO” / “VAJIRAM & RAVI”. Thus, the Court is entrusted with assessing the issue of deceptive similarity of each of these marks vis-à-vis Defendant’s “VAJIRAO & REDDY” trademark and logo.

7. Discerning similarity between the marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY”

7.1. From a linguistic perspective, “VAJIRAM” and “VAJIRAO” are quite similar, with the primary difference being the replacement of consonant “M” with “O” in the latter. Depending on pronunciation, this variation can either accentuate or minimise the distinction. In contrast, “RAVI” and “REDDY” are names which are not only demographically different, but also semantically distinct, adding another layer of divergence between the composite trademarks “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY”. When scrutinized as composite marks rather than isolated elements, the distinctions between the two trademarks become increasingly evident. These differences are amplified chiefly by the divergent second components – “RAVI” in the case of the Plaintiff, and “REDDY” for the Defendant. Additionally, the uniqueness of each organization’s logo, as well as the Defendant’s inclusion of the word ‘institute’ in their registered device mark, further enhance the dissimilarities. For visual inspection, a tabular comparison illustrating the usage of rival marks is provided below: Plaintiff’s marks Defendant’s mark

7.2. From the afore-mentioned comparison, it becomes evident that there is no immediate or obvious association between the two composite marks. Moreover, the essential question is whether, owing to the similarity in names or get-up, the public is likely to be misled into thinking that the Defendant’s goods or services are actually that of the Plaintiff. While Mr. Chandra has emphasized the pronounced similarity in the expression “VAJI” contained in both names, arguing that this could mislead consumers due to the general tendency to focus on the initial syllable of a wordmark, the Court does not subscribe to this view. Since the case pertains to composite marks, in evaluating the potential for deceptive similarity, the marks must be considered as a whole, instead of breaking down its constituent parts. The Plaintiff seeks to dissect the marks, and focus on the likeness of the first few syllables of the first part “VAJIRAM”, disregarding the distinguishing elements presented by the second part “RAVI” and “REDDY”, which are equally integral to the two conflicting marks. Such an approach would undermine the fundamental principles of trademark law that govern the assessment of deceptive similarity.

8. Comparing the marks “VAJIRAM” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY”

8.1. To strengthen their proprietary claims, on 20th September, 2002, the Plaintiff secured statutory rights for the name “VAJIRAM” – an integral component of their primary trademark “VAJIRAM & RAVI”, asserting usage since 31st December, 1976. This registration was predicated on Trademark No. 917402, [“ ”] which was registered on 11th April, 2000.[5] Plaintiff has also placed documents revealing instances of See: Plaintiff’s reply to the Examination Report for trademark No. 1135331, dated 24th April, 2003. independent utilization of the name “VAJIRAM” for the promotion of their test series and educational institute via newspaper advertisements. The afore-mentioned registration, when considered in conjunction with the demonstrated usage of the mark, establishes the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights over the trademark “VAJIRAM”. When this mark is compared to the Defendant’s composite mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY”, several notable differences become apparent, which have already been discussed. These differences are significant enough to enable consumers to readily distinguish between the Plaintiff’s “VAJIRAM” and the Defendant’s “VAJIRAO & REDDY”.

8.2. Furthermore, documentary evidence has also surfaced that apart from “VAJIRAO & REDDY”, the Defendant is employing the name “VAJIRAO” in isolation on the course material that they distribute to students. Their web domain, “www.vajiraoinstitute.com”, specifically incorporates the term “VAJIRAO”, without the addition of any other distinctive elements. As previously delineated, the terms “VAJIRAM” and “VAJIRAO” share structural similarities, with a difference of only a single alphabet. Thus, in light of the Plaintiff’s independent usage of “VAJIRAM” and its formal registration under their name, commonality of the trade to which the marks are applied, the Court must also examine whether Defendant’s standalone use of “VAJIRAO” has the potential to mislead consumers. This aspect has been dealt extensively in the succeeding part of this judgment. Likelihood of confusion

9. An indispensable element of deceptive similarity is the probability of confusion amongst the members of the public. To sustain their claims, Plaintiff must demonstrate the possibility of consumers being misled into assuming that Plaintiff and Defendant are related or associated. To this end, Plaintiff submitted that the mounting of Defendant’s billboard endorsing “VAJIRAO & REDDY” outside their premises confused the students, who enquired about any possible links between parties. Mr. Mehta, on the other hand, argued that these are pure conjectures and Plaintiff has not supplied a proof of actual confusion. In the assessment of similarity of trademarks, a key element is the consumer sophistication i.e., how discerning the target audience is in differentiating the two competing marks. Although the Plaintiff is not required to prove actual confusion at this interim stage, they do bear the burden of sufficiently demonstrating a likelihood of such confusion. Specifically, the Plaintiff must offer compelling evidence to suggest that customers could reasonably mistake the Defendant’s services for those of the Plaintiff’s. In this context, the Court’s attention was directed to an interview of one Ms. Anu Kumari, who cleared the UPSC examination. According to the interview published in Civil Services Chronicle,[6] Ms. Kumari attended mock interviews at both, “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY”, during her preparation. Similarly, one Mr. Sagar Kumar stated that he practiced for the interview at both institutes.[7] These published accounts serve as persuasive evidence, indicating that the target consumers are fully capable of distinguishing between the two competing institutes. It also undermines Plaintiff’s claim of potential public deception and introduces serious reservations regarding the Pg. 63 of the Defendant’s documents filed vide Index D-153800. Pg. 72 of the Defendant’s documents filed vide Index D-153800. likelihood of consumer confusion. The target consumers intended to be influenced by the trademarks/ brand promotion comprise of well-informed civil services aspirants, who are not only cognizant of the multiple coaching centres engaged in the trade, but also their respective reputations in the market. Given that the ultimate goal for these candidates is to successfully pass the civil services examinations, they typically engage in comprehensive research and make judicious decisions when selecting a coaching centre. This consumer sophistication serves as a significant factor mitigating the risk of confusion between the two marks to which, the Court has accorded considerable weight in adjudication of the present application.[8] In the Court’s opinion, at this interlocutory stage, the Plaintiff has failed to establish through cogent material that use of “VAJIRAO & REDDY” by the Defendant is likely to render a perception that Defendant is associated with Plaintiff’s “VAJIRAM” or “VAJIRAM & RAVI”. On the contrary, through the afore-noted accounts of aspirants/ successful candidates, Defendant has persuasively refuted the element of confusion that could arise from concurrent use of the conflicting marks.

10. The next key issue is whether Defendant’s isolated use of “VAJIRAO” would provoke confusion among the target audience. As noted hereinabove, Plaintiff’s “VAJIRAM” and Defendant’s “VAJIRAO” are nearly alike. Through the newspaper advertisements placed on record (referred in paragraph 8.1) and trademark registration, Plaintiff has attempted to establish that “VAJIRAM” has, on its own, acquired intrinsic value and distinctiveness that stands apart from the composite mark Refer: Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 13th Edn., p.600. “VAJIRAM & RAVI”. However, this does not automatically establish likelihood of consumer confusion. It must be borne in mind that in passing off actions, the focus is on protecting the goodwill and reputation that the Plaintiff has built in a product or service, rather than protecting the trademark itself.[9] Thus, establishment of a vested goodwill in “VAJIRAM” is a pre-requisite for asserting likelihood of confusion from the concurrent use of “VAJIRAO”. It is worth noting that registration of “VAJIRAM”, secured in 2002 with a claimed use dating back to 1976, is specifically tied to the composite mark “VAJIRAM & RAO”/ “ ”. Further, the documentary evidence suggests that except on a few occasions, Plaintiff has utilized the “VAJIRAM” mark alongside their primary mark “VAJIRAM & RAVI”. To illustrate, one such instance is reproduced below:

11. In the afore-extracted, while Plaintiff has mentioned “VAJIRAM”, it is accompanied with “VAJIRAM & RAVI” – their brand name. For completeness, the Court has also referred to the isolated use of “VAJIRAM” Refer: Salmond & Heuston in Law of Torts, 20th Edn., p.395, Star Industrial Co. v. Yap Kwee Kor, by Plaintiff, as discernible from the record: While these excerpts indicate usage, they are not a comprehensive indicator of goodwill and reputation that may have accrued to “VAJIRAM” alone. Therefore, a more nuanced analysis is essential to gauge both the independent strength of “VAJIRAM”, and its potential to be confused with “VAJIRAO”. To this end, the Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “VAJIRAM” has carved out an identity strong enough to risk consumer confusion when the Defendant uses “VAJIRAO” as a standalone mark. To substantiate this claim, the Plaintiff must present compelling evidence during trial to prove not just the mark’s distinctiveness, but also that the Defendant’s use of “VAJIRAO” is likely to sow confusion among the target audience.

12. For the reasons outlined above, at the prima facie stage, the Court [1976] FSR 256 (PC) and N.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corp. and Anr., (1995) SCC OnLine Del 310. does not find the trademark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” deceptively similar to “VAJIRAM” or “VAJIRAM & RAVI”, having the potential of misleading the intended segment of the public into confusing the two entities or assuming an association. Insofar as comparison of “VAJIRAM” with “VAJIRAO” is concerned, despite the structural similarities, in absence of demonstrable goodwill and reputation in the “VAJIRAM” mark, the Court does not find that a likelihood of confusion is palpable.

ON HONESTY IN ADOPTION OF THE IMPUGNED MARK

13. An integral facet of the Plaintiff’s case is the alleged dishonesty in adoption of the impugned mark – “VAJIRAO & REDDY”. Countering the Defendant’s rationale for adopting their trademark, Mr. Chandra assiduously contended that the Defendant’s use of the disputed mark is plainly in bad faith. He argued that this was a calculated move to deceive the public and come close to the Plaintiff, whose market presence has been established since 1976. The Defendant has fabricated an inconceivable and improbable narrative, claiming that their inspiration stems from the great Peshwa leader, Bajirao. According to him, this story serves as a convenient afterthought devised solely to defend the current lawsuit. The Defendant, on the other hand, argued that at the time of establishing their centre in Agra, they had no knowledge of the Plaintiff’s institution, operating in Delhi.

14. At first glance, the Defendant’s entire narrative of trademark adoption may not inspire immediate confidence or appear wholly convincing. However, when contextualized within the broader factual landscape of this case, including the Defendant’s demonstrated uninterrupted use of the mark since 2005,10 such initial scepticism alone does not substantiate a claim that their adoption of the mark was deceitful or fraudulent. The name “VAJIRAO” is a proper noun and is not merely a superficial element, rather forms a cornerstone of the Defendant’s various business and educational endeavours. This fact is substantiated by the establishment of the Vajirao Shikshan Trust and the Vajirao Degree College in 2013-14, which provides concrete evidence supporting the legitimacy and continuous use of the said name by the Defendant. Although the Plaintiff established their inaugural institute in Delhi in 1976, preceding the Defendant’s entry into the market, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff’s activities at the time they founded their own institute in 1995 in Agra. The documentary evidence submitted to the Court does not provide a comprehensive view of the matter at hand. In the Court’s opinion, this issue warrants further investigation through a trial, where both parties will be obligated to present evidence substantiating their respective positions.

THE PLEA OF DELAY, ACQUIESCENCE, AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS

15. Both parties have been concurrently conducting business activities under their respective trademarks since 1995 (claimed founding year of Defendant’s institute). Plaintiff alleges lack of knowledge of the Defendant prior to the origin of the present controversy, in 2018. The Defendant has strenuously opposed the Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, arguing that As per the documents available on record, the earliest use of the “VAJIRAO & REDDY” trademark is discernible from March, 2005 in an interview of one Mr. Rakesh Ranjan (a successful candidate) who referred to the Defendant-institute. the delay in initiating legal action, coupled with their tacit acceptance of the Defendant’s activities, undermines the Plaintiff’s entitlement to such relief.

16. Acquiescence is a nuanced issue, involving both legal and factual elements. In simple terms, acquiescence refers to the tacit or explicit approval of an infringing party’s activities. This approval can manifest either through active consent, or through a deliberate failure to act while another party undermines one’s proprietary rights. Essentially, it implies that the owner of the mark was aware of the infringing activity but chose to remain inactive, thereby leading the Defendant to alter their position through sustained use of the mark. While the duration required to establish acquiescence can vary depending on the specifics of each case, what remains constant is the need to demonstrate the Plaintiff’s awareness and some form of positive action that emboldens the infringer.

17. The extensive documentary evidence provided by the Defendant reveals that both parties have been actively marketing their respective brands under the disputed trademarks in publications widely read by civil services aspirants, since at least September 2009. Although Mr. Chandra, has proffered an explanation for their delayed legal action and emphasized the absence of any ‘positive act’ on their part to acknowledge the Defendant’s activities, yet, the balance of convenience tips in favour of the Defendant. In Pankaj Goel (Supra), relied upon by the Plaintiff, the issue of delay and laches was examined at the interim stage. The Court accepted the justification of Plaintiff therein for their delayed action, noting that they did not earlier perceive the infringing activities of Defendant therein as a threat, warranting immediate action. Notably, these observations were rendered in light of the fraudulent conduct and adoption of the impugned mark by the Defendant therein. This judgment, in the Court’s opinion, would not be of assistance to the Plaintiff as factual circumstances of that case differ entirely from the present one. In the case at hand, concurrent advertisements in the same publications on multiple occasions underscore that the Plaintiff had adequate notice of the Defendant’s alleged passing off activities. These advertisements should have served as a clear indicator for the Plaintiff to commence an investigation into a potential infringement of their trademark rights – an action they conspicuously failed to initiate for nearly a decade. Should Defendant’s argument of belated action be substantiated, it could bolster their case of deliberate suppression of crucial information pertaining to their awareness of the Defendant’s activities. Given these considerations, at present, prior to a comprehensive trial, there is no compelling rationale for restricting the Defendant from using their registered mark. In view of the distinguishable factual scenario, Plaintiff’s reliance on the judgement in Automatic Electric (Supra), is also misconceived. The ruling in this cited precedent states that mere coexistence of advertisements in the same magazine does not necessarily serve as evidence to weaken the Plaintiff’s claim on the basis of undue delay. However, these observations are tailored to the unique circumstances of that case where, the parties’ brands were advertised together only on a single occasion, and the Plaintiff was operating from a distinct geographic jurisdiction. In sharp contrast, the Defendant in the instant case initially commenced its operations in Agra from 1995 to 2000 before broadening their scope to include Delhi in the year 2000. Since that expansion, they have engaged in open, continuous, and unimpeded use of the disputed mark in the same market as the Plaintiff for nearly two decades. Moreover, the Defendant’s device mark has remained unchallenged on the trademark register since 2009, claiming usage as far back as 2007. This extended and continuous use of the mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” has undoubtedly led to the accrual of significant goodwill, substantiated by student testimonials and success metrics furnished on record. In light of these material differences, the Defendant’s arguments offer a plausible defence against the issuance of an injunction, determination of which, must be reserved for a full trial.

THE TEST OF PASSING OFF

18. At the heart of any passing-off case is the question of whether the Defendant has engaged in deceptive conduct, thereby misleading consumers into believing that their goods or services are connected with, or endorsed by, the Plaintiff. For deciding this issue, the classic trinity test was devised in Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc.,11 which was later reinforced by the Supreme Court in Laxmikant V. Patel (Supra). This test encompasses three limbs – goodwill of the Plaintiff, misrepresentation by the Defendant, and damage to Plaintiff on account of Defendant’s activities.

19. In the context of passing off actions, ‘goodwill’ necessitates that Plaintiff must prove that the public recognizes them as the exclusive source of the goods or services offered under their particular trademark. In order to establish goodwill and reputation, the Plaintiff has submitted a variety of evidence, including the income tax returns of their founder, Mr. P.S. Ravindran, a selection of invoices from 1998 onwards, and substantial newspaper advertisements highlighting the exceptional achievements of [1990] 1 WLR 491. their enrolled students. While the afore-noted documents indicate that the Plaintiff enjoys public recognition, they do not, in the Court’s preliminary assessment, meet the criteria required to grant an injunction. For establishing reputation, Plaintiff must show that a significant portion of the relevant consumer base associates the mark exclusively with them. This is often demonstrated through a combination of factors such as sales figures, duration and geographical area of trademark use, advertising expenditures, and customer testimonials, among others. Thus, in Court’s opinion, cogent evidence will be necessary at the trial stage for the Court to make proper assessment.

20. With respect to the issue of irreparable loss and damages, the Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the contested activities are causing them any tangible harm. Their argument hinges merely on the presence of a billboard near their establishment, which purportedly led some students to make inquiries. Beyond this, the Court’s role in deciding whether to grant injunctive relief involves a careful balancing of the competing interests of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The primary factor for consideration is whether withholding an interim injunction would inflict serious, irreparable harm upon the Plaintiff, which cannot be adequately remedied post-trial. The Plaintiff’s case falls substantially short in this regard. Given the Defendant’s established market presence, halting their activities under the mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” through an injunction would, in the Court’s assessment, cause significant prejudice to them, pending final judgement. Accordingly, the scales of balance of convenience tilt in Defendant’s favour. It must also be noted that the trial of the present suit is currently underway, where Plaintiff’s witnesses have already tendered their evidence by way of affidavits, which implies that the matter is progressing promptly towards conclusion. Thus, deferring the adjudication of these issues would be the most appropriate course.

CONCLUSION

21. At this interlocutory stage, the notable dissimilarities between the rival marks as a whole, and lack of compelling evidence to indicate a likelihood of confusion – as previously detailed – serve to weaken the Plaintiff’s case for an interim injunction against “VAJIRAO & REDDY” on the grounds of passing off their marks “VAJIRAM”, “VAJIRAM & RAO”, and “VAJIRAM & RAVI”. The record also lacks any material that would lead the Court to firmly conclude that the Defendants have misrepresented their marks as being associated with the Plaintiff. Rather, the evidence shows that the Defendants have been using their marks without any protest from the Plaintiff for an extended period, dating back to 2005. Given these considerations, the Court is not inclined to grant an interim injunction restraining Defendants from trading under the mark “VAJIRAO” or “VAJIRAO & REDDY”.

22. The application is dismissed. CS (COMM) 43/2019

23. List before the Roster Bench for monitoring of trial on 06th November, 2023.

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2023