Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Protecting Frankfinn’s ‘FLY HIGH’ Trademark Against Rival Aviation Institute

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Protecting Frankfinn’s ‘FLY HIGH’ Trademark Against Rival Aviation Institute

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining a rival aviation training institute from using the mark “FLY HIGH” or any deceptively similar variant, holding that such use infringes the registered trademark rights of Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. The Court found that the impugned mark was identical to the dominant and source-identifying element of Frankfinn’s trademark and was likely to cause consumer confusion.

Factual Background

Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. is engaged in providing professional training in aviation, air-hostess services, hospitality, travel management and customer services. The company has operated training institutes across India, including under the names “Frankfinn Institute of Air-Hostess Training” and “FLY HIGH.”

Frankfinn adopted the mark “FLY HIGH” in 2004 and secured its registration in 2007. Over the years, it has extensively promoted the mark and established nationwide recognition and goodwill.

The dispute arose when Fly High Institute, a Nagpur-based aviation training institute, began offering air-hostess and aviation-related courses using the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” and “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE.”

Procedural Background

Frankfinn instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking relief for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition and dilution of its trademark rights. Along with the suit, it sought urgent ad-interim protection. The matter came up before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who considered the plea at the ex parte stage.

Issues

1. Whether Frankfinn had established a prima facie case of infringement of its registered trademark “FLY HIGH.”

2. Whether the marks used by Fly High Institute were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion.

3. Whether interim protection was warranted to prevent irreparable harm to Frankfinn’s goodwill and reputation.

Contentions of the Parties

Frankfinn contended that “FLY HIGH” is a registered trademark and the dominant, source-identifying element of its branding. It argued that Fly High Institute was offering identical training services under an identical mark, thereby misleading students into believing an association or affiliation with Frankfinn.

Frankfinn also pointed out that earlier trademark applications filed by Fly High Institute for “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE” had been opposed by it and were subsequently abandoned. A later application for “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE” remained pending before the Trade Marks Registry.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that “FLY HIGH” constituted the essential and dominant feature of the impugned marks. Since the competing parties were operating in the same field and offering identical services, the likelihood of confusion among students and aspirants was significantly heightened.

Rejecting the plea that “FLY HIGH” was generic or descriptive, the Court relied on an earlier Delhi High Court decision recognising Frankfinn’s proprietary rights in the mark and holding that the expression was not descriptive of aviation training services.

The Court also rejected the argument that prospective students would be sufficiently discerning to distinguish between the two institutes, noting that deceptive similarity in trade names was likely to create an impression of association or affiliation.

The Court found that Frankfinn had made out a strong prima facie case and that continued use of the impugned marks would cause irreparable harm to its goodwill, reputation and brand identity.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Fly High Institute and all persons acting on its behalf from using the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” or any other deceptively similar mark. The restraint applies to use as a trade name, logo, domain name, meta tag, keyword or in any other manner that may result in infringement, passing off or dilution of Frankfinn’s trademark rights. The injunction will remain in force until March 16, 2026, the next date of hearing.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. C.M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kulvinder Singh Kohli, Mr. Kapil Midha, Ms. Muskaan Garg, Mr. Garv Singh, Ms. Sindhoora Ravindran and Ms. Vartika Gautam, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kapoor, Mr. Nikhil, Mr. Ashish Tarwani, Ms. Shafiya and Mr. Shikhar Singh, Advocates.