The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party seeking discretionary relief must approach the court with clean hands, and misrepresentation and concealment of material facts can disentitle a party from such relief.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The appellants in this appeal impugn the judgment dated 14.11.2014 whereby the interim order dated 25.04.2014 has been confirmed. The appellant has been restrained from using the trademark/trade-name ‘ShreeRam World School’ and the domain name www.shreeram.in on the ground that it is deceptively and phonetically similar to the respondents’ trademark ‘SHRI RAM / SHRIRAM’ in relation to its services.

2. The respondents are the plaintiffs and have filed the suit for permanent injunction, passing off, damages contending that they had established the school ‘THE SHRI RAM SCHOOL’ in the year 1988 in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is contended that the respondents thereafter added further schools under the same trade-name i.e. ‘The SHRI RAM SCHOOL’ in Gurgaon. It is contended that the schools under the name ‘THE SHRI RAM SCHOOL’ have carved out a unique space as institutions of excellence and are well known for their value based education. The schools of the respondents have been ranked very high in order of merit and in certain surveys ranked as the number one school in India.

3. It is contended in the plaint that the appellants/defendants have been running schools under the name and style of ‘SACHDEVA PUBLIC SCHOOL’, ‘SACHDEVA GLOBAL SCHOOL’. It is contended that as per the information of the respondents, the appellants recently opened a school by the name of ‘SHREERAM WORLD SCHOOL’ and adopted a domain name www.shreeram.in recently. It is contended that the adoption of the mark by the appellants was dishonest and was for taking benefit of the immense reputation attached to the respondents’ schools under the mark ‘THE SHRI RAM SCHOOL’.

4. Per contra, the appellants have contended that the word ‘SHRI RAM’ represents the name of a Hindu deity and, as such, no person could be allowed to adopt or use the word ‘SHRI RAM’ in a manner to oust the usage of the same by others. It is contended that the word “SHRI RAM” has been associated with educational institutions as far back as in the year 1923.

There are several schools in Delhi and in other parts of India that use the name and word ‘SHRI RAM’ as part of the name of the school.

5. It is further contended that the respondents are guilty of misrepresentation and concealment inasmuch when the respondents had applied for the mark ‘THE SHRI RAM EDUCARE, the Trademark Registry had raised objections that there were several trademarks already registered with the word ‘SHRI RAM’. The respondents in response thereto by their letter dated 08.06.2012 had categorically taken a stand that the word ‘SHRI RAM’ was the name of a Hindu deity and no one could claim proprietorship to such a name and further that the word ‘SHRI RAM’ was common to trade. It is contended that having taken such a stand the respondents could not have then filed the present suit claiming proprietorship of the mark ‘SHRI RAM’. It is contended that the respondents after replying to the objections raised by the Trademark Registry by letter dated 08.06.2012 just before filing of the suit claim to have issued a letter dated 15.04.2014 to the Trademark Registry withdrawing the letter dated 08.06.2012. The letter dated 15.04.2014 is not available on the electronic record available on the website of the Trademark Registry. However, the respondents by their letter dated 20.08.2014 sought to place a copy of the said letter on record.

6. It is contended that the timing of the withdrawal of the letter dated 08.06.2012 by the respondents was such that it was just prior to the filing of the suit and the respondents being aware that such a response would be fatal to their case, sought to withdraw the letter and filed the suit. The objections raised by the Trademark Registry, response by the respondents and the alleged withdrawal of the response were not disclosed in the plaint and, as such, the same amounted to the concealment and misrepresentation and, as such, the respondents were disentitled to the grant of di