Delhi High Court rules in favour of T.I.M.E institute, grants interim injunction against Times Coaching Centre
In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of coaching institute Triumphant
Delhi High Court rules in favour of T.I.M.E institute, grants interim injunction against Times Coaching Centre In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of coaching institute Triumphant Institute of Management Education (T.I.M.E), restraining one 'Times Coaching Centre' from using its registered mark for educational services. The...
Delhi High Court rules in favour of T.I.M.E institute, grants interim injunction against Times Coaching Centre
In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of coaching institute Triumphant Institute of Management Education (T.I.M.E), restraining one 'Times Coaching Centre' from using its registered mark for educational services.
The defendant institute were thereby restrained from using the marks 'TIMES COACHING CENTRE' and 'FUTURE TIMES COACHING CENTRE' for educational services.
Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court further held that the acronym 'T.I.M.E.' is a dominant and essential feature of the plaintiff's trademarks.
"Plaintiff (T.I.M.E) is thus prima facie correct in its submission that because of the commonality in the services of the respective parties, the public at large and more particularly, the students would get confused with the origin of services offered by the Defendant and mistake the same to be that of the Plaintiff, on account of the deceptive similarity in the acronym T.I.M.E. and TIMES in the Defendant's trademarks," the order stated.
The present suit was filed by T.I.M.E alleging that the defendant's usage of the word 'TIMES' as part of its trade name for educational services amounted to infringement and passing off.
On a comparison of 'T.I.M.E.' and 'TIMES', the Court held that the two are phonetically identical and deceptively similar. The Court further held that the use of the word 'TIMES' by the defendant was dishonest and with a view to misrepresent to the general public that it had an association or connection with that of the plaintiff.
"...the use of the word 'TIMES' by the Defendant for which it has no plausible explanation, is dishonest and only with a view to misrepresent to the general public that Defendant's Institute has an association or a connection with Plaintiff's Institute or is a branch thereof and is calculated to injure its goodwill and reputation," the Court said.
The Plaintiff established that it had commenced running of coaching Institutes in 1992 and the Company came into existence in 1995. The Plaintiff had developed into a specialist multi-location, multi-programme training provider and ran on corporate lines. Currently, Plaintiff has over 214 offices in 109 towns and cities across the country and offers training for National level exams such as CAT, GATE, CLAT, IIT foundation programmes, State-level examinations, etc.
Justice Jyoti Singh further held, "In my prima facie view, the use of the word 'TIMES' by the Defendant for which it has no plausible explanation, is dishonest and only with a view to misrepresent to the general public that Defendant's Institute has an association or a connection with Plaintiff's Institute or is a branch thereof and is calculated to injure its goodwill and reputation. The very fact that the Defendant has chosen to adopt the word TIMES as a part of the trademark, without disclosing a single reason as to why it chose only the word TIMES for similar educational and training programmes, is by itself indicative of the intent to confuse the consumers and encash on Plaintiff's reputation. Plaintiff has thus established a prima facie case of passing off against the Defendant."
The Court judged the case on various parameters and observed, "…..this Court finds that act of the Defendant cannot be termed as wilful disobedience. The interim injunction granted by this Court restrained the Defendant from using the trademarks 'TIMES COACHING CENTRE' as well as the domain names, comprising the word 'TIMES COACHING', including any other trademark, label, etc. deceptively similar and infringing the Plaintiff's trademarks."
However, the Court made it clear that defendant is at liberty to run its institute under any other trademark including 'FUTURE COACHING CENTRE', albeit sans the usage of the word 'TIMES'.
The petition was disposed of with costs of Rs. 20,000 payable by the defendant to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk's Association within two weeks from the date of the order.