Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahesh Yadav & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 28 Nov 2017 · 2017:DHC:7301
Valmiki J. Mehta
CS(COMM) No. 934/2016
2017:DHC:7301
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction restraining defendants from using the trademark 'TIME' found to infringe the plaintiff's registered trademark 'T.I.M.E' for coaching services.

Full Text
Translation output
CS(COMM) No. 934/2016 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CS(COMM) No. 934/2016 & I.A 10996/2016
28th November, 2017 TRIUMPHANT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Bitika Sharma and Mr. Lakshay Kaushik, Advocates.
VERSUS
MAHESH YADAV & ANR. ..... Defendants
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs of injunction restraining the defendants from violating the rights in the trademark ‘T.I.M.E’ (Triumphant Institute of Management Education) of the plaintiff. Causes of action are also pleaded and reliefs claimed for injunction on the basis of the defendants passing off the trademark of the plaintiff with respect to the services in question. Plaintiff also pleads unfair competition, dilution etc as also seeks reliefs of rendition of accounts and damages. 2017:DHC:7301

2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the owner of the trademark 'T.I.M.E' and which are initials drawn from the name of the plaintiff company which is Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff pleads that it is engaged in the business for providing of services of a coaching institute and training centers having about 244 centers and branches in over 116 cities and towns in India. Plaintiff offers training for national level examinations such as CAT, Bank, GATE, IIT JEE examination etc. Plaintiff pleads that it adopted the trademark ‘T.I.M.E’ in the year 1992 and thereafter has been regularly using this trademark for coaching services. Plaintiff has got registered the trademark as under:- S No. Trademark Reg.no/App.No. Class

1. T.I.M.E Triumphant Institute of Management Education (word mark) 1343168 41

2. T.I.M.E (Triumphant Institute of Management Education (Logo) 1408314 41

3. T.I.M.E. KIDS (LOGO) 2109877 41

4. T.I.M.E 1725338 16

3. As per the plaint, plaintiff pleads that it came to know for the first time in July 2016 of the existence of the defendants on account of a newspaper advertisement inserted on 6.7.2016 in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar wherein the defendants were found to have adopted an identical trademark TIME and for same coaching services. It is pleaded that the defendants have no right to use the trademark TIME which is identical or nearly identical with the registered trademark T.I.M.E of the plaintiff.

4. Defendants have been served in the suit but they have not appeared and hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.1.2017. Plaintiff has thereafter filed its affidavit by way of evidence and proved its case.

5. A reference to the affidavit by way of evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff shows that authorization for filing of a suit is in terms of the Board of Resolution dated 10.7.2017 which has been proved as Ex.PW1/1. The trademark registrations of the plaintiff have been proved as Ex.PW1/3. Plaintiff has proved its goodwill and reputation by filing its business turn over in terms of the Chartered Accountant Certificate which is proved as Ex.PW1/6. The Chartered Accountant Certificate indicating the turnover and the promotional advertising expenditure of the plaintiff is proved as Ex.PW1/7. The factum with respect to the defendants advertising their services under more or less identical trademark being TIME/Time Institute is proved by the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 6.7.2016 as Ex.PW1/8. In view of the evidence led by the plaintiff, in my opinion, plaintiff has made out a case that the defendants are infringing the trademark of the plaintiff T.I.M.E and the defendants are passing off their services as that of the plaintiff. Facts proved on record establish that the defendants intend to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff as for similar services by using identical/nearly identical trademark TIME/Time Institute.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press the relief with respect to the rendition of accounts/damages.

7. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants. Defendants are restrained from in any manner using the trademark TIME/Time Institute or any other trademark which is identical, nearly identical or deceptively similar to the trademark T.I.M.E of the plaintiff. Plaintiff will be entitled to costs of the suit. Decree sheet be drawn.

NOVEMBER 28, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J