IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Amir Education Society - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Public School Society - Respondent
LPA 83 of 2022 and C.M. 6080 of 2022
Decided On : 22-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. dispute regarding trademark and court undertakings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. consent order and its implications. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. standing of consent orders in court. (Para 6 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeal is arising out of the order dated 01.04.2009 passed in W.P.(C.) No.12991/2018 as well as the order dated 15.12.2021 passed in Review Petition No.205/2021, The Amir Education Society Vs. The Delhi Public School Society.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court/The Amir Education Society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was registered on 05.08.2004 and the society is running Modern Delhi Public School located in Sector 87, Faridabad. The petitioner society has stated in the LPA is running the school for the last 18 years and provides all modern amenities to the students. The respondent/The Delhi Public School Society is again a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is running numerous schools under the name and style of Delhi Public School.
(i) A dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent in respect of the trademark Delhi Public School and C.S.(O.S.) No.733/2006 was filed before the Delhi High Court against the appellant for permanent and mandatory injunction and rending of accounts and damages. However, the plaint was returned back for lack of territorial jurisdiction on 24.09.2009.
(ii) A Civil Suit was preferred C.S. No.432/2011 before the Faridabad Court and was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.08.2015 on the ground that the proceedings could not have been continued before that Court as per Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act.
(iii) Rectification Petition No.ORA/199/200/TM/DEL6843 dated 31.08.2008 was preferred before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. It was decided in favour of the Delhi Public School Society vide order dated 16.07.2018, whereby the trademark of the appellant was cancelled.
(iv) The appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C.) No. 12991/2018 arising out of order dated 16.07.2018 and the same was disposed of on 01.04.2021.
3. The order dated 01.04.2019 passed in W.P.(C.) No.12991/2018 is reproduced as under:
"1. After some hearing, Mr. Davinder Kumar, Chairman of the petitioner society present in Court along with his counsel undertakes to change the name of its schools at Faridabad from Modern Delhi Public School to Modern International Public School with effect from 1st of April, 2021. He further undertakes to file the necessary applications for change of name of schools to the concerned authority within a period of eight weeks from today with an advance copy to the counsel for the respondent.
2. The undertaking of the petitioner is hereby accepted.
3. The concerned authorities are directed to permit the change of name of the petitioner's schools to ensure that the petitioner's schools' new name is effective from of 1st of April, 2021.
4. This writ petition and the pending application are disposed of in terms of the undertaking of the petitioner. The petitioner shall remain bound by the undertaking given to this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks waiver of costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed by IPAB to which learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has no objection subject to the petitioner honouring the undertaking meaning thereby that if the petitioner does not honour the undertaking then the respondent shall recover the costs from the petitioner apart from initiating appropriate action for violating the undertaking.
6. Both the parties are directed not to give any publicity to the order of the IPAB or the order of this Court.
7. This Court appreciates the fair assistance rendered by learned counsel for both the parties in this matter.
8. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under signature of the Court master."
4. The aforesaid makes it very clear that the pe
Consent orders, once established without coercion or fraud, are binding and cannot be overturned unless substantial error is proven.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks and the enforcement of injunctions to prevent trademark infringement.
Continuous violation of court orders and failure to comply with directives can lead to injunction and compensation.
The use of similar trademarks in education sectors leads to consumer confusion, hence prior registered trademarks are to be protected through injunction.
Prior usage of a trademark establishes rights that outweigh later registration, particularly in the educational sector to prevent public confusion.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases of passing off, the prior use and goodwill of a mark, likelihood of confusion, and damage to goodwill are crucial factors in determining infringem....
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
Trademark protections are fundamental in preventing unauthorized use that misleads and causes confusion in the marketplace, especially in education.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.