Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Dpmi Vocational Institute Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Paramedical Institute - Respondent
CS(COMM) 620 of 2023 & I.A. 17041 of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2023
DPMI - Trademark Infringement - Class 41, 16 - The court discussed the use of the trademark 'DPMI' by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'DPMI' and the full name 'Delhi Paramedical Institute'. The Defendant was also directed to transfer the domain name 'dpmiinstitute.com' to the Plaintiff and change its name to 'Netking Paramedical Institute'.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the Defendant for using the trademark 'DPMI' or any similar mark, claiming prior usage and registration of the mark. The Defendant's use of the mark led to confusion and infringement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found in favor of the Plaintiff, noting the extensive promotion and goodwill built by the Plaintiff using the mark 'DPMI'. The Defendant's use of the mark led to confusion and infringement, justifying the injunction.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, violation of domain name rights, and confusion due to identical marks.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court decided in favor of the Plaintiff based on the extensive promotion and prior usage of the mark 'DPMI', and the potential for confusion and infringement caused by the Defendant's use of the same mark.
Final Decision: The Court decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'DPMI' and the full name 'Delhi Paramedical Institute'. The Defendant was also directed to transfer the domain name 'dpmiinstitute.com' to the Plaintiff and change its name to 'Netking Paramedical Institute'.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The Plaintiff-DPMI Vocational Institute Private Limited has filed the present suit, seeking permanent injunction, restraining Defendant-Delhi Paramedical Institute from using the trade mark "DPMI" or any other mark which is identical/or deceptively similar to Plaintiff's mark.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that, the Para Medical Technology Society of India was established in the year 1996 for looking after the management and administration of vocational training and education, imparted by the Delhi Paramedical and Management Institute which was a proprietary concern of Mr. Vinod Bachheti. The said Institute continued as a proprietorship concern from 1996 to 2015. During this period, the trade mark, "DPMI" which was the acronym of the full name of the Institute as also its variants were adopted and used by Mr. Vinod Bachheti.
4. At that stage, the plaintiff company was incorporated as a Company with two promoters and directors, namely, Ms. Poonam Bachheti and Mr. Vinod Bachheti. The National Skill Development Corporation appointed the plaintiff as the approved training partner. The Plaintiff is also associated with the Skill India Mission. The Plaintiff claims rights not only in the mark "DPMI", but also in respect of the names - PMTS of India and the full form of DPMI viz., Delhi Paramedical & Management Institute.
5. The Plaintiff provides professional education to 10 + 2, Graduate and Post Graduate levels, for candidates who are aspiring to undertake programmes in Paramedical Sciences, Hotel Management, Journalism & Mass Communication, Aviation & Tourism. The Plaintiff provides a large number of para-medical programmes, which have been set out in the plaint and are extracted below:
| S.No. | PARAMEDICAL PROGRAMS |
| 1 | Medical Laboratory Technology (MLT) |
| 2 | Operation Theatre Technology (OTT) |
| 3 | Radiology Technology (X Ray Tech) |
| 4 | Phlebotomy Technology |
| 5 | Dental Oral Hygienist |
| 6 | Blood Bank Technology (BBT) |
| 7 | Cardiac Care Technology (CCT) |
| 8 | Dialysis Technology |
| 9 | Frontline Health Work (FLHW) |
| 10 | Anesthesia Technology |
| 11 | Emergency Medical Tech. (BASIC) |
| 12 | Diabetes Educator |
| 13 | General Duty Assistant (GDA) |
| 14 | Dental Assistant |
| 15 | Dietician Assistant |
6. The Plaintiff claims to have 62 branches, which are stated to be spread across various States, namely, Andaman & Nicobar, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal etc.
7. The mark, "DPMI" along with the logo are also registered vide application no. 1876157, under class 41 and 16. The earliest registration dates back to 2009. The details of the same are set out below:
8. According, to the gross receipts of the Plaintiff, the revenues from operations i.e. sale of services is more than Rupees Four Crores for the year 2021-22 and advertising expenditure has also been placed on record which is around Rs.1,75,000/- for the year 2020-2021. According to the Plaintiff, it is the prior user, adopter and registered proprietor for the mark, "DPMI" and for its services which has built an enviable goodwill through its extensive promotion.
9. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the use of the mark, `DPMI' Institute and full name `Delhi Paramedical Institute' by the Defendant, who is also engaged in the provision of educational services/vocational training, catering to the healthcare sector. The Plaintiff also has the website viz., https://dpmiindia.com/,https://dpmisamastipur.com/,https://dpmibokaro.com/, https://dpmisiliguri.com/.
10. It is the case of the Plaintiff, that the Defendant is running its centre from Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh and owing to the identical mark being used, the Defendant's centre is being confused with the Plaintiff's centre. The Defendant is also running its website using the mark DPMI, i.e., https://dpmiinstitute.com/.
11. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's adoption and use of
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademark rights and prevention of confusion and infringement through the use of identical or similar marks.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks and the enforcement of injunctions to prevent trademark infringement.
Court upheld the priority of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks, finding a prima facie case for infringement due to deceptive similarity, justifying an interim injunction against the Defendants.
Trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act was established based on the likelihood of confusion among consumers due to the defendants' use of a mark similar to the plaintiff....
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' rights against infringement and passing off, validating their trademarks through established goodwill and allowing for summary judgment due to the defendant's non-a....
The use of similar trademarks in education sectors leads to consumer confusion, hence prior registered trademarks are to be protected through injunction.
Unauthorized use of a registered trademark, particularly in health-related products, constitutes infringement and can endanger public safety, warranting permanent injunction and damages.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
