Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Ltd. vs S. L. Vaswani

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 10

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Ltd.
Versus
S.L. Vaswani & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1360 OF 2005-1361 OF 2005 With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1362 OF 2005
Decided on : 05-01-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate, Pravin Anand, Hari Shankar K., Diva Arora, Vikas Singh Jangra, Tanya Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents:L.N. Rao, Senior Advocate, Arvind Kumar, N. Kumar, Hetu Arora, Alex T., Advocates.

Headnote:CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1360 OF 2005-1361 OF 2005
       (a) Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 – Suit for permanent and temporary injunction – High Court declining – Single Judge refusing injunction upon objective consideration of materials on record giving cogent reasons – Division Bench rightly concurred – Instantly, findings of Single Judge and Division Bench on the crucial factors like prima facie case, balance of convenience and equity based on a correct and balanced consideration of various facets of the case – High Court rightly observing that the present litigation is to have more commerce in education and less education in commerce – No infirmity in impugned judgment. (Para 16, 18, 19)
       (1996) 5 SCC 714; 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727; (2001) 5 SCC 73 – Relied upon
       (1965) 1 SCR 737; (1969) 2 SCC 727; (2004) 6 SCC 145 – Referred
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1362 OF 2005
       (b) Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 – Single Judge restraining respondents from starting new courses in business management etc. and directing them to append a note in the advertisement that they are not related to the appellant – Division Bench holding it not proper – Ought to have set it aside in entirety. (Para 22)
       Facts of the case:
       Although, the main objects of the appellant, incorporated under the Companies Act , are to impart and train in all areas, subjects, fields and disciplines of education, including hospitality, tourism and business management; to act as representative of various foreign educational institutions, universities, organizations, bodies or any other type of institutions for recruiting students and rendering other related services; to establish and run in any part of India, colleges or schools to impart education on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Company from time to time but a closer look at the incidental or ancillary objects shows that the appellant can engage itself in all types of possible business activities.
       Respondent No.1, Satilila Charitable Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is said to be part of Skyline group of companies/concerns.
       The main object of respondent No.1 is to establish colleges for higher technical education for various sections of the community. In November, 2001, respondent No.1 acquired 13 acres of land in the Institutional complex, Greater NOIDA, U.P. at a cost of Rs.5.25 crores for establishing a multi disciplinary college. Thereafter, the respondents obtained permission from All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and established an institution with the name Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology. They also recruited teaching faculty, made admissions in 4 disciplines and started five-year engineering course with effect from 9.9.2002.
       As soon as respondent No.1 issued an advertisement for recruiting teachers, the appellant got served notice upon the respondents and called upon them to stop using the word `Skyline in the name of their institute by alleging that the same was affecting its goodwill.
       The appellant filed Suit in Delhi High Court for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, their officers, servants, agents, representatives, franchisees or any of them from using the name `Skyline as part of their trading name in relation to the activities in the field of education and/or as a trademark in relation to any printed matter, literature, syllabus, etc. or in any other manner whatsoever. The appellant further prayed for award of damages to the tune of Rs.5,01,600/- and for issue of a direction to the respondents to give details of the profits earned by them by the alleged wrongful use of the name `Skyline and deliver all printed material including syllabi, course materials, stationery, blocks, dies, etc. bearing the name `Skyline.
       The High Court partly allowed the application filed by the appellant.
       Findings of the Court:
       Appellants have thrust unwarranted litigation on the respondents.
       Result:
       Civil Appeal Nos.1360-1361 of 2005 dismissed; Civil Appeal No.1362 of 2005 allowed. Modified injunction granted by the learned Single Judge vacated in its entirety. Cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the appellant for unwarranted litigation thrust upon the respondents.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a dispute over the use of the word "Skyline" in the name of educational institutions and whether such use constitutes passing off or infringement of goodwill (!) (!) .
The appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, claims to have established a reputable educational brand with a significant reputation and goodwill, particularly in relation to the name "Skyline" (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent, a charitable society, is part of a larger group of companies/concerns operating under the "Skyline" name, with objectives focused on establishing technical and higher education institutions, including an institute of engineering and technology (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant filed a suit for permanent and temporary injunctions, alleging that the respondent's use of "Skyline" was affecting its goodwill and causing confusion among the public (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent defended by asserting that "Skyline" is a generic or commonly used term, and that many entities use it in their trade names, thus not conferring exclusive rights (!) (!) .
The courts examined whether the use of "Skyline" by the respondent was likely to cause confusion, considering factors like prior use, reputation, and the nature of the respective institutions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts observed that the word "Skyline" is widely used by numerous companies and educational institutions around the world, indicating it is a generic term rather than a distinctive or unique trademark (!) .
The courts found that the appellant had not established a strong case for injunction, primarily because "Skyline" is a common, descriptive, or generic term used by many, and the respondent's institute name sufficiently differentiated itself (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the exercise of discretion in granting or refusing interlocutory relief should be based on objective and balanced consideration of factors such as prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for confusion (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the courts upheld the decisions refusing to grant a permanent injunction against the respondent, noting that the appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for exclusive rights over the word "Skyline" in the context of education (!) (!) .
The appellate courts also observed that the appellant's own conduct, including starting multiple institutions and not disclosing the lack of recognition or affiliation, contributed to the conclusion that the litigation was more commercial than educational in nature (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

Judgment :-

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. These appeals are directed against order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby it dismissed FAO(OS) No.212 of 2003 preferred by Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant) against the order of the learned Single Judge who refused to restrain Satilila Charitable Society and S.L. Vaswani (hereinafter referred to as `the respondents) from using the name `Skyline as a part of their trading name in relation to their activities in the field of education and/or as a trademark in relation to any printed matter, including the course material, literature, syllabus etc. and partly allowed FAO(OS) No.213 of 2003 preferred by the respondents insofar as the learned Single Judge directed them not to start any new course similar to the course run by the appellant, namely, graduate and post-graduate courses in Management, Travel and Tourism and further directed them to insert a note in the advertisement etc. that their institute is in no way related to the appellant.

2. The appellant is incorporated under the Companies Act. Although, the appellants main objects, as specified in para `A of the Memorandum of Association, are to impart and train in all areas, subjects, fields and disciplines of education, including hospitality, tourism and business management; to act as representative of various foreign educational institutions, universities, organizations, bodies or any other type of institutions for recruiting students and rendering other related services; to establish and run in any part of India, colleges or schools to impart education on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Company from time to time but a closer look at the incidental or ancillary objects enumerated in para `B and other objects enumerated in para `C of the Memorandum of Association shows that the appellant can engage itself in all types of possible business activities.

3. Respondent No.1, Satilila Charitable Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is said to be part of Skyline group of companies/concerns, the details of which are given below:

i) M/s. S.K. Contracts (P) Ltd. (a company started in 1986)

ii) M/s. Skyline Construction Co. (a partnership firm started in 1990)

iii) M/s. Skyline Constructions (a partnership firm started in 1993)

iv) M/s. Skyline Construction Engineers & Builders Co. (a partnership firm started in 1999)

v) M/s. Skyline Contractors (P) Ltd. (a company started in 1999)

vi) M/s. Skyline Software (P) Ltd. (a company for imparting education in software started in 2001)

4. The main object of respondent No.1 is to establish colleges for higher technical education for various sections of the community. In November, 2001, respondent No.1 acquired 13 acres of land in the Institutional complex, Greater NOIDA, U.P. at a cost of Rs.5.25 crores for establishing a multi disciplinary college. Thereafter, the respondents obtained permission from All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and established an institution with the name Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology. They also recruited teaching faculty, made admissions in 4 disciplines and started five-year engineering course with effect from 9.9.2002.

5. As soon as respondent No.1 issued an advertisement for recruiting teachers, the appellant got served notice dated 31.1.2002 upon the respondents and called upon them to stop using the word `Skyline in the name of their institute by alleging that the same was affecting its goodwill. Some dialogue appears to have taken place between the functionaries of the appellant and respondent No.1 but without any tangible result.

Therefore, the appellant filed Suit No.1553 of 2002 in Delhi High Court for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, their officers, servants, agents, representatives, franchisees or any of them from using the name `Skyline as part of their trading name

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 10

Cases Referred (5)