JUDGMENT :

1. In a suit for infringement of the registered trademark of the plaintiffs and for passing off of the business and marks of the plaintiffs by the defendants, the plaintiffs have sought interim protection in this application. This application has been heard after completion of affidavits.

2. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, since December 19, 1994 the plaintiff No. 1 has been operating as “IIHM” with the abbreviation “IIHM” forming a distinct and prominent part of its registered trademarks. The trademarks have been registered in classes 41 and 35. The registration of the trademark under class 35 has expired on April 24, 2017. The plaintiffs have applied for renewal of the same which is pending. The trademark registration in respect of class 41 has been renewed till July 17, 2027. He has contended that, the mark and/or letters “IIHM” is the dominant and essential part of the trademark registrations of the plaintiffs.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiffs have been using the trademarks and the abbreviation “IIHM” extensively and have advertised the same with wide publicity in various newspapers, print media and other social media. The plaintiffs have published brochure from time to time bearing the registered trademark as also the acronym. The plaintiffs have a domain name as “iihm.ac.in” which also appears in the brochure. According to him, the abbreviation “IIHM” by customary usage over time has become synonymous with the hotel management and catering service courses offered by the plaintiff No.1. He has contended that, the trademarks of the plaintiffs have acquired substantial reputation and goodwill all over India.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has drawn the attention of the court to the caution notice issued by the plaintiffs as also the replies thereto. He has referred to the prior suit and the contempt proceedings. He has submitted that, prior to the institution of the present suit, the plaintiffs had filed CS No. 186 of 2010 complaining of infringement and passing off against the defendants. He has submitted that, an interim order was passed in July 15, 2010 restraining the defendants from using “IIHM” as part of its name or literature or any other matter without using the full form of its name in similar font and in similar size used by the defendants to print “IIHM” in the relevant literature or material. Such interim order had been confirmed on December 24, 2010. He has contended that, the defendants did not comply with such orders. The plaintiffs had filed four separate contempt petitions. He has referred to the first contempt petition been CC No. 60 of 2010 in which a Rule was issued and subsequently dismissed as the Rule was not served upon the contemnors. In the second contempt petition been CC No. 110 of 2011 a Rule had been issued and the same was disposed of by the order dated January 21, 2011. The third contempt petition been CC No. 87 of 2015 had been disposed of by an order dated July 31, 2015 on the basis of the stand taken by the contemnors therein. He has referred to the contempt petition of CC No. 87 of 2015 and the affidavits filed therein. He has submitted that, the defendants had admitted that the acronym “IIHM” was akin to the abbreviation “IIHM” and undertook to use the same with the full name, Indian Institute of Hotel Management in the same font and in the same size or do away with it altogether. According to him, the stand of the defendants had led to the passing of the order dated July 31, 2021. He has submitted that, the defendants continued to violate the order dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed by the order dated December 24, 2010. The plaintiffs had filed the fourth contempt petition been CC No. 52 of 2016. Such contempt petition had been disposed of by the order dated September 23, 2016. He has contended that, such contempt proceedings had been dropped since the operat