2003 Supreme(Del) 442

High Court Of Delhi
SKYLINE EDUCATION INSTITUTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
S.L.VASWANI - Respondent
Interim Application 11130 of 2002
Decided On : 05/06/2003

Headnote:Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 28, 29 — Interim injunction — Educational institutions — Plaintiffs institute imparting education in management, travel, tourism, etc. under the name "Skyline" Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. — Defendants institute "Skyline" Institute of Engineering and Technology — Word "Skyline" is not an invented or coined word but a generic term — No question of confusion or deception as both parties not imparting education in same course — No blanket order of injunction can be given — However, defendants restrained from starting the course run by plaintiff under the name prefixed by the word "Skyline" — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rules 1 & 2.

       Held: The plaintiff has been running its institute under the name and style of "Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. ever since 1996 and has been imparting education at the level of wider-graduate and post-graduate courses in management, travel and tourism etc. and that the students who had passed out of their institute have found place in certain well reputed Government, Semi-Government and private organisations. The defendants have started their institute only from the session 2002 although defendant No. 1 had been carrying on its business and various construction activities under the name and style of Skyline in Bombay and some other parts of the country. The defendants have obtained the requisite affiliation and recognition from the concerned statutory and regulatory authorities and have spent a huge sum in establishing their institute and the first ever batch of students in the field of engineering is already undergoing the first year course. The plaintiffs applications for registration of the trade marks SKYLINE INSTITUTE", "SKYLINE MEDALLIST", "SKYLINE BUSINESS SCHOOL" and "SKYLINE LEAD FACULTY" in class 16 inter alias for printed matter, literature, stationery etc. are pending for registration with the Registrar of Trade Marks. The important question which awaits for consideration is as to whether the word "Skyline is a generic, specific or invented word. The dictionary meaning of the word "Skyline" is "the line where earth and sky meet horizon", "the outline of the building seen against the sky". Learned counsel for the defendants has empathetically urged that this word was chosen and adopted by the defendants honestly and bonafide as it was connected with the construction business of the defendants and later on it was used to found a charitable Society to set up an engineering college. As against this, contention of Mr. Anand is that the plea of the defendants is self-contradictory inasmuch as if the word is generic, then the defendants cannot claim any right therein. Besides it is alleged that the use of the word "Skyline" in relation to the defendant No. 2 institute is notbonafide because as early as in January, 2002, the plaintiff had put the defendants to notice about the plaintiff having adopted and using the said name every since 1996, but no reply was received and despite a meeting held sometimes in March, the defendants did not cease from using the same. This Court on a consideration of the respective submissions is prima facie of the view that the word "Skyline" being admittedly neither an invented nor specific word, has to be considered a generic word more particularly, when it is shown that thousands of persons and institutions are using such word either as a part of their trading name and the word is being used by lacs of people all over the world. thereforee, even a prior user of such a mark by the plaintiff will not vest any exclusive right in them to use the said word in exclusion of others. Similarly pendency of the applications for registration in class-16 is not of much help to the plaintiff. This is for the reason that Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 does not seem to have a category of educational institute for a class of goods for which trade mark can be registered. Educational institutions like that of the plaintiff and defendants are liable to be registered under AICTE and apparently plaintiff has no approval under AICTE Act and, thereforee, cannot claim any equitable and discretionary relief.

       Educational institutions like that of the plaintiff and defendants are liable to be registered under AICTE and apparently plaintiff has no approval under AICTE Act and, thereforee, cannot claim any equitable and discretionary relief.

       The courses imparted by the defendants are not related either to management or tours and travels etc., which are the courses run by the plaintiff institute.

       Merely by the use of the word "Skyline" as a prefix in the name of the two institutes, there is no likelihood of such a confusion because the full name of the plaintiff institute is "Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd." while that of the defendant is "Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology" are distinctive enough. The words "Engineering and Technology" used in the defendants name are sufficient to indicate to all concerned that the defendant is not the same institute as the plaintiff. In any case, care can be taken to clarify such a confusion, even if there is any likelihood of such a confusion.

       So far as existence of prima facie case and balance of convenience is concerned, equities in the present case appear to be equally balanced inasmuch as, as per the plaintiffs own showing, it had adopted the word "Skyline" in respect of its institute since 1996 and the defendant though started the present institute in the year 2002, had been pursuing their activities in the field of Engineering and Construction under the name having a prefix "Skyline" since 1986 onwards. The institute of the defendant is being run by a Trust and has been established for a laudable object of imparting technical education to all sections of the Society at a cost of more than Rs. 10 crores after meeting all requirements with regard to its registration and affiliation. They are already functional and have made recruitment of the faculty and imparting education to its first batch. The next batch is likely to start shortly. On the face of this position, this Court is of the view that it would create hardship and irreparable loss to the defendants if a blanket injunction is granted against them from running their institute under the name and style of "Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology". The balance of convenience, if any, thereforee lies in favor of the defendants rather than in favor of the plaintiff.

       In view of the foregoing discussion it would meet the ends of justice if the defendants are presently directed not to undertake any course in management and tour and travels etc. which are run by the plaintiffs institute.

       The defendants are hereby restrained from starting any new courses similar to the courses run by the plaintiff viz graduate and post-graduate education in management, travel and tourism.