1. The plaintiff No.1, which is a registered public trust engaged in educational activities and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 who are the trustees of plaintiff No.1 Trust, have filed the present suit for infringement of their trademark, namely, “Institute of Technology and Management” and “ITM”. The plaintiffs have prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendants from using the impugned marks “ITM” and “Institute of Technology and Management” and/or “ITM University”. The plaintiffs have along with the suit filed notice of motion praying for order of injunction restraining the defendants from using the aforesaid marks.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 was registered with the Charity Commissioner on 8th October 1993. It is their further case that after registration the plaintiffs have established various educational institutions in association with Southern New Hampshire College. It is their case that the plaintiffs, since last two decades, are conducting various education courses in the field of technology, management, hotel management etc. It is their case that the plaintiffs were notified as ITM University by Chhattisgarh Government. It is also their case that the institutions of the plaintiffs are recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and their courses have received accreditation. The students after passing the course from their institutions have got placements in various reputed concerns. It is their case that the plaintiffs have adopted the trademark “Institute for Technology and Management – ITM” for last several years and have made huge expenditure on advertisement and, as such, the word “ITM” has become synonymous with the plaintiffs' educational activity. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that recently before filing of this suit, on 18th March 2010, one student desirous of seeking admission in the plaintiffs' institute for technology and management pointed out the allegations made against ITM Gurgaon. It is the case of the plaintiffs that only after the information was given by the said student the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants were using a similar and deceptive mark as that of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the plaintiffs then issued notices to the defendants asking them to refrain from using the plaintiffs' trademark. However, since even after receipt of the notices, the defendants did not stop using the said trademark, the plaintiffs were required to file the present suit along with notice of motion.

3. Heard Shri Kadam, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs and Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants.

4. Shri Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are using the impugned trademark right from 1991. He further submits that in any case the trademark of the plaintiffs has been duly registered. He submits that as long as trademark of the plaintiffs is registered, it is not permissible for the Court to go beyond the registration and in case of infringement of the said mark an injunction must follow. The learned counsel further submits that in any case the plaintiffs are in the field of education much prior to that of the defendants and, as such, irrespective of the registration of the trademark of the plaintiffs, on the ground of prior use their trademark is liable to be protected. Learned counsel further submits that the defendants have nowhere averred as to how they adopted the trademark which they are using and, as such, the defendants with dishonest and deceptive intention are using the trademark of the plaintiffs. In reply to the contention of the defendants that since the words used in the the trademark are generic in nature the same cannot be registered, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that since the defendants themselves have filed suit against the University of the same name at Gwalior, notified by the Madhya Pradesh Government it is not