The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption of a trade mark with the intention to confuse and ride on the goodwill of another party constitutes dishonest adoption and is likely to cause confusion, warranting protection under the law.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

M/s. ACL Education Centre Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Alfa Centre for Languages Pvt. Ltd. have filed this suit against two Defendants under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as well as u/s 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain infringement and passing off of Trade Marks and Copyright etc. Defendant No. 1 is M/s. American Centre for Languages, which is being run by Defendant No. 2.

2. Plaintiff No. 1 is a private limited company, which is stated to be closely held having its registered office in Lucknow (U.P.). It was established with the objective of carrying out of activities relating to imparting, teaching and training of languages to various kinds of students. One of its business centres is located at Dwarka, New Delhi, which is also claimed to be principal centre of business, in order to carry out its various administrative as well as main business activities to expand its business throughout the country, both core as well as non-core ancillary activities. The Plaintiff is running its centres for imparting, teaching and training in various languages under the trading style 'American' Centre for Languages', which, according to the Plaintiff No. 1, is its trade mark, trade name and house mark. The Plaintiffs state that the ownership in the aforesaid trade mark etc. along with the business was acquired by the Plaintiff No. 1 with the acquisition of M/s. American Centre for Languages, a proprietorship firm of Mr. Praveen Sharma. The original owner had started the institute under the name M/s. American Centre for Languages in the year 1996, which was acquired by the Plaintiff No. 1 in the year 2003. Therefore, the rights and interests in the said trade mark, trade name and house mark etc. are now enjoined upon the Plaintiff No. 1 by virtue of lawful transfer of intellectual property rights from the original owner of M/s. American Centre for Languages to the Plaintiff No. 1. The Plaintiff No. 2 is also a private limited company having its registered office at Ber Sarai, New Delhi. It carries on business of imparting, training and teaching of languages to various students of different levels, which was established under the stewardship of the management of the Plaintiff No. 1. Its principal place of business is located in Gurgaon, Haryana and it is also imparting training under the trade name/trade mark American Centre for Languages. It is claimed that the original owner bona fidely adopted the words/marks American Centre for Languages with 'ACL' being the short form as its trade mark in the end of the year 1995 and applied for registration thereof with the Trade Mark Registry, Mumbai and the registration is awaited, which is only a ministerial act. The said trade mark/trade name has earned an enormous reputation in terms of recognition or otherwise in the general public as to its quality and nature of services and has earned a distinctive trade recognition pertaining to the services being offered by the original owner and now by the Plaintiffs. It also honestly adopted and conceived an artistic logo which is an original artistic work within the definition of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957. It is claimed that even the trade name/trade mark 'American Centre for Languages' involves original literary work comprising of sequential related words coined in a manner intended to give itself an exclusive identity vis-a-vis its corporate objective and activities, which is also a copyright protected under the Copyright Act.

3. The Plaintiffs object to the business established by the Defendant No. 2 under the name 'M/s. American Centre for Languages', i.e. Defendant No. 1, which is carrying on the same business activity, namely, imparting, teaching and training of English language to the consumers within the same area of operation, i.e. the locality within the very vicinity of the local/commercial periphery of the Plaintiff No. 2. It is alleged by the Plaintiffs