1. This order shall decide three applications being IA No. 14353/2008 and IA No. 14354/2008 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „the CPC) by defendant nos. 4 to 6 and defendant no. 3 respectively for rejection of the plaint and IA No. 1865/2009 filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for vacation of the interim injunction granted by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2006.

2. The present suit was filed seeking mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff?s trademarks CFA, CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYST etc., passing off and rendition of accounts.

3. Vide order dated 04.08.2006, this Court granted an injunction whereby the original defendant nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from using the trade marks/service marks “CFA, Chartered Financial Analysts of India, ICFA and ICFAI”. The said injunction was to become operative after the end of the then current academic session. The relevant portion of the interim order dated 04.08.2006 reads as under :

“In view of above, I allow the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and restrain the Defendants, during the pendency of the suit, from using any of the trademarks or service marks CFA, Chartered Financial Analyst, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, ICFA and ICFAI or any other name or mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to these marks and from passing off their programmes or business as that of the Plaintiffs. However, this order of injunction will not come into effect till the end of current academic session of the CFA programme run by the Defendants. Nor will anything said herein will mean final expression of opinion of this Court.”

4. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 04.08.2006, an application (IA No.9950/2007) under Order 1 Rule 10 with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the plaintiff in order to implead certain Universities (Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Dehradun) sponsored by the defendant No.1, as necessary parties to the present suit.

5. The reason given by the plaintiff for the purpose of amendments/impleadment of universities sponsored by the original defendants owes its origin to an application filed by the original defendants filed as IA No. 1589/2005 in which the original defendants in the midst of arguments on the plaintiff?s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC being IA No. 11547/2004 claimed that their group had grown with the addition of various institutes including their sponsored universities which have been newly impleaded.

6. The following is the justification given by the plaintiff in para 11 of the amended Plaint for impleadment of defendant nos. 3 to 6: “Defendant Nos. 3-6 are the universities established, sponsored and controlled by Defendant No.1 and permitted under a purported license of Defendant No.1 to use the impugned trade mark/trade name CFA, ICFAI, INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYSTS. In this connection, the Plaintiff wishes to submit that :

a) Defendant No.1 has made an application for the mark “ICFAI UNIVERSITY” as a trade mark before the Registrar of Trade Marks, claiming itself to be the owner of the mark in question.

b) The brochure published by Defendant No.1 for its various programmes contains a disclosure statement to the effect that these universities are sponsored, controlled and established by Defendant No.1 and that their use of the trade mark/trade name in their respective names is under license of the said Defendant.

c) Various statues enacted at the instance of Defendant No.1 for establishment of the proposed respondents as private universities acknowledge the role of Defendant No.1 in creation, administration and management of these proposed respondents.

d) The Defendant No.1 has been operating a website www.icfai.org which features a link to the “ICFAI UNIVERSITY”, describing the various universities sponsor