The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a trial to establish allegations of groundless threats and infringement of a trade mark, as per the provisions of section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Rohit Arya, J.

Heard on the question of admission and final disposal with the consent of parties.

This appeal by plaintiff under section 96 CPC is directed against the order dated 18/05/2017 dismissing the suit No. 172-A/2017 as barred by section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (For short, 'the Act, 1999) while allowing application of defendants filed in that behalf under Order 7 rule 11 CPC.

2. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against defendants for issuance of groundless threats of legal proceedings, declaration and damages under section 142 of the Act, 1999 inter alia pleading in the suit that the plaintiff No. 1 M/s. Ahilya Vedaant Education Welfare Society; a register's society having its office at H-62, MIG Colony, Indore runs the school under the name "VEDAANTA THE GLOBAL SCHOOL". The plaintiff No. 2 is President of the plaintiff No. 1 society, (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') with the trade mark/trade name/institution with mono since long continuously and uninterruptedly in distinctive getup, makeup and lettering style. The artistic features of the said trade mark are original artistic work (within the meaning of Indian Copyright Act, 1957). The plaintiff is the owner and the proprietor of the copyright therein. The plaintiff has already filed application numbers 3450411, 3465105, 3465106 and 3467936 in class 41 for registration of the said representation of the trademark/trade name/institution name under the Act, 1999 in respect of educational services and the said applications are pending adjudication. The plaintiff has gained a valuable and vast recognition under the said representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name for the said services. The plaintiff has been promoting its services through various means and modes including advertisements, distribution of trade literature and publicity materials, hoardings, etc., The plaintiff is also promoting its school and the educational services on the basis of said representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name through social and electronic modes. Accordingly, the plaintiff has already spent substantial sum of money on publicity and trade promotion activities, etc., The plaintiff has pleaded that under the said representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name, the plaintiff enjoys solid, enduring and indelible reputation at the national and international level.

3. In paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the plaint, it is pleaded that the defendant No. 1 is a society and the defendant No. 2 is its President (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant'). The defendant claim to be the proprietor of the representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name, "VEDAANT" alleged to be registered under the Act, 1999 in respect of play, pre-school, nursery school, kids club, etc., The defendant has been using entirely different representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name in relation to the impugned services. Out of blue, the plaintiff received threats of dire consequences from the defendant in case the plaintiff could not stop using the representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name. The defendant No. 2 has filed a wrongful police complaint at the Police Station, Kanadia, Indore claiming that it is the registered proprietor of the alleged representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name, "VEDAANT" with further claim that plaintiff's representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name "VEDAANTA THE GLOBAL SCHOOL" is similar to that of the defendant's representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name. The defendant has been extending the threats to the plaintiff which tantamount to an illegal, unlawful and groundless threats under the provisions of the Act, 1999. In paragraph 13, it is further pleaded that the plaintiff's said representation of the trade mark/trade name/institution name is completely different from the repre