JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Defendants 2 and 3 in the present suit are persons in control of Defendant 1.

2. The defendants were earlier represented by one Ms. Heeba Ansari. However, no one appeared on their behalf either on 27 March 2023 or on 11 April 2023.

3. On 14 July 2023, Ms. Ansari appeared and submitted that, she had lost touch with the defendants and sought to withdraw her Vakalatnama. The Court, therefore, directed court notice, without process fee, to issue to the defendant to enter appearance today.

4. The office report from the Registry indicates that court notice was duly served on all the defendants. None of the defendants are, however, present, despite service of court notice.

5. The defendants have also not chosen to contest the present suit by way of any written statement.

6. Though certain earlier orders record the statement of the learned Counsel for the parties that the dispute stood settled, and that an application would be moved under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Mr. Lakshay Kaushik, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendants never came forward to sign the terms of settlement.

7. The defendants have not only failed to file any response to the plaint; they have also chosen not to remain present even after court notice was served on them on 3 August 2023. It appears, therefore, that the defendants have nothing substantial to offer by way of defence and the assertions in the plaint which, needless to say, have to be treated as admitted on the ground of non-traverse.

8. I have heard Mr. Lakshay Kaushik, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, and perused the material on record.

9. In my view, the case eminently merits passing of a decree in exercise of the powers conferred on the Court under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.

10. The plaintiff claims to be running a comprehensive chain of coaching institutes and training centres operating across the country, providing training for examinations to be undertaken by aspirants seeking entry into institutes of higher education.

11. The plaintiff is the proprietor, inter alia, of the following registrations:

S. No.Trade MarkApplication No.ClassDate of ApplicationUser date1.13431684109/03/200501/05/19922.14083144122/12/200501/05/19923.17253381626/08/200801/09/19924.27125993804/04/201401/05/19925.27125973804/04/201401/05/19926.T.I.M.E. TUTIONS (WORD)28208621601/10/201426/06/20117.T.I.M.E. TUITIONS (WORD)28208643801/10/201426/06/20118.T.I.M.E. TUITIONS (WORD)28208664101/10/201426/06/20119.28208633801/10/201426/06/201110.28208654101/10/201426/06/201111.28208611601/10/201426/06/2011

12. The plaintiff claims to have 190 offices in 99 towns and cities across the country, including Delhi, Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Pune, Cochin, Kolkata and others. In Delhi alone, the plaintiff claims to be running 10 coaching centres. It is further claimed that, by dint of its continued experience, the plaintiff has acquired considerable reputation and goodwill in the field of educational and training and coaching services. In the year 2021 alone, it is claimed that the plaintiff's turnover, from rendering of such services, is in the region of Rs.146 crores. The plaintiff also claims to have expended considerable amounts in rendering its services, with the expenditure on that account being in the region of Rs.2.28 crores even in the years 2020-2021.

13. It is further submitted that, with the passage of time, the T.I.M.E. mark has become the source identifier of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also running a YouTube channel under the name "TIME4Education".

14. Mr. Kaushik submits that, by virtue of the registrations held by it, under the Trade Marks Act, the plaintiff is entitled to defend itself against infringement of the said mark under Section 28(1) read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, as well as against any attempt by any person to pass off his/her services as services rendered by the plaintiff.

15. The plaintiff is aggrieved by use, by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document