INDIAN INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment in Application No. 6887 of 1990 in C.S. No. 1307 of 1990, granting interim injunction restraining the appellant/respondent, its agents, men and representatives from using the name of "Indian Institute of Human Resources Development" in their business and passing off teaching materials in that name, which, according to the respondent/applicant-plaintiff is deceptively similar to "National Institute of Human Resources Development" a proprietary concern of the respondent plaintiff.

(2.) IN the plaint in C.S. No. 1307 of 1990, the plaintiff/respondent has claimed that it had conceived of a new educational project and evolved a new original orientation of both the subjects of study and methods of instruction of inventive nature and designed the institution "National INstitute of Human Resources Development" in the context of national objectives of education and training for simultaneous development of knowledge, skill and aptitude. It thus started the business at Santhome High Road, Madras, wherein, according to it, the defendant/appellant was employed as its Legal Adviser on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 500/-. The latter, according to the plaintiff/respondent had free access to the records, notes, study materials and other uniqueness of the INstitution's management. He, however, taking advantage of his fiduciary capacity had easy and full access to all records and study materials, notes and other printed materials, and took away many copies and extracts with the fraudulent intention to use the same as his own and accordingly came out with a press advertisement in newspapers that he had established "INdian INstitute of Human Resources Development", a business of his own. Alleging that the defendant/appellant had dishonestly taken away the plaintiff/respondent's business and that he had been fradulently passing off the same, the plaintiff/respondent sought the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by himself, his servants, agents or anyone claiming through him from using the plaintiff's trade name and mark "National INstitute of Human Resources Development" or any other similar or colourable expression and words for his INstitute or any other allied business and passing off of the name as that of the plaintiff, by using the name and style of INdian INstitute of Human Resources Development or similar expression or words in any manner of passing off his institute as that of the plaintiff, by using his name, besides other reliefs

(3.) THE respondent/appellant was noticed and it submitted a return stating that it (he) had not committed any act of passing off as alleged by the plaintiff/respondent and had not infringed its name or the trade mark of the plaintiff institute. It, however, admitted that its Proprietor, Govindarajan was engaged as the legal adviser for the plaintiff/respondent, but contended that the trade name or trade mark of the Institute was entirely different from that of the plaintiff/respondent and that the words "Institute of Human Resources Development" were only descriptive words to denote the business in which no right of monopoly could be claimed by anyone.