The court established that the plaintiff's registered trademark "FLY HIGH" is suggestive of its services, protecting its exclusive rights and warranting an interim injunction against the defendants for infringement.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

I.A.7710/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

1. By order dated 5th July, 2021, this Court had granted ex parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants (Defendants 2 and 3 are partners of Defendant 1) from using the mark "FLY HIGH", either by itself or in any combination with other words, as would infringe the plaintiff's registered marks in this regard.

2. Subsequent thereto, pleadings in the application have been completed. Learned Counsel for both sides have been heard at length on this application.

3. The mark, forming subject matter of consideration in the present case is "FLY HIGH". The plaintiff is engaged in providing training in hospitality, aviation, travel management and customer services, and is a well known name in providing training for in-flight cabin crew. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of:

(i) the registered word mark "FLY HIGH", vide certificate dated 19th April, 2011, in Class 41 with the services described as "providing of training",

(ii) the device mark , vide certificate dated 1 7th December, 2018, in Class 41, with services described as "providing education and training services in aviation, hospitality, travel and customer care management".

(iii) the device mark registration dated 20th January, 2017 including fly high part registered under Class 16 for "paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesnes for stationery or household purposes; artists materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisite (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers type; printing blocks", and

(iv) the device mark under Class 41 in respect of "education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities".

4. The plaint asserts that the plaintiff has coined and adopted the mark "Frankfinn" in 1980 and has been continuously using the said mark in connection with hospitality, aviation, travel management and customer services since 1993. The mark "FLY HIGH", it is asserted in the plaint, was coined and created by the plaintiff in 2004. The plaintiff is, as already noted hereinabove, the proprietor of "FLY HIGH" as a registered word mark/device mark under the aforesaid four registrations, all of which continue to be valid and subsisting till date.

5. The plaint also asserts that, on each page of the plaintiff's website www.frankfinn.com, the mark "FLY HIGH" figures, thereby indicating that it is an essential part of the market identity of the plaintiff. The plaint has also cited, in this context, the domain names of the plaintiff registered including the mark "FLY HIGH", viz www.flyhigh.in; app.flyhigh.in; fivt.flyhigh.in; fima@flyhigh.in. The plaint asserts, therefore, that, by dint of long and uninterrupted user, the mark "FLY HIGH" is exclusively identified with the plaint.

6. The plaint also refers to orders passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court, which granted injunc