The main legal point established is the entitlement of a person carrying business under a particular name to seek protection against adoption and use of a similar name by another person, and the need to prevent confusion and misrepresentation.

V.K. Jain, J.

IA 15304/2011(Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure)

1. The Plaintiff college is a society registered under Societies Registration Act and is a constituent college of University of Delhi. The Plaintiff is a leading educational institution, offering degrees to both undergraduate as well as postgraduate students. The Plaintiff college came to be founded on 1st February, 1881. The Plaintiff has sponsored a number of societies/clubs, including St. Stephens College Alumni Association, which has been in existence for last 50 years and is an integral part of the Plaintiff society. It is alleged that St. Stephen's College Alumni Association on account of their continuous extensive and uninterrupted use have come to be associated with Plaintiff and is alumni association. Defendant No. 1 has been formed recently and registered under Societies Registration Act. While obtaining registration, Defendant No. 3 filed an affidavit stating therein that there is no society with an identical or resembling name. This affidavit was false to the knowledge of Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1-society had been founded without any permission from the Plaintiff and it is alleged that this is a mala fide act on account of the invitation which the previous principal of the Plaintiff had extended to Defendant No. 6 to represent the alumni in the Governing Body, having been withdrawn in May, 2011. A cease and desist notice dated 5th September, 2011 was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants, requiring them to stop using the names "St. Stephens College and/or its derivatives/logo, College Crest and motto. There has however been no response from the Defendants who have also created a website http://ststephensalumni.Companyin Defendant No. 1 has also provided a hyperlink from its website to the website of the Plaintiff www.ststephens.edu and it has also been using the College Crest, copyright in which vests solely in the Plaintiff since the year 1926. It is alleged that by using the name St. Stephens Alumni College, Defendant No. 1 is passing off its activities as those of the alumni association of the Plaintiff and is misleading the ex-students of the Plaintiff into joining it, believing it to be the recognized and authorized alumni association of the Plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 is also collecting subscription, gifts, donations, etc using the name adopted by it. The Plaintiff has sought injunction restraining the Defendants from using the name St. Stephens College Alumni Association as also the college crest, motto and logo and from representing themselves as an alumni association of the Plaintiff. They have also sought injunction, restraining the Defendants from receiving any subscription or collecting any donations or grant for the membership of Defendant No. 1-society. They have sought a further injunction against Defendant No. 1 interfering in the association, management and affairs of the Plaintiff college.

2. It can hardly be disputed that if a company or a society adopts a name, which is so similar to the name of the Plaintiff as is likely to deceive or to cause confusion, a Civil Court has jurisdiction, under common law, to grant an injunction against use of such a name by the Defendant, so as to ensure that the Defendant is not able to pass off its business and activities as those of the Plaintiff and is not able to encash upon the goodwill and reputation which the Plaintiff-company/society enjoys. In such a case, it would also be in public interest to grant injunction against use of a name which is likely to deceive or cause confusion so as to protect the interest of the persons who are likely to be confused on account of similarity of the two names. It is true that no person has an exclusive right in a particular name or title except to the extent such a right is conferred by Statutes such as Trademarks Act and Companies Act, but, a person carrying business or other activity under a particular name is entitled to seek prote