ITM TRUST Vs. EDUCATE INDIA SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff No.1, which is a registered public trust engaged in educational activities and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 who are the trustees of plaintiff No.1 Trust, have filed the present suit for infringement of their trademark, namely, "Institute of Technology and Management" and "ITM". The plaintiffs have prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendants from using the impugned marks "ITM" and "Institute of Technology and Management" and/or "ITM University". The plaintiffs have along with the suit filed notice of motion praying for order of injunction restraining the defendants from using the aforesaid marks.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 was registered with the Charity Commissioner on 8 th October 1993. It is their further case that after registration the plaintiffs have established various educational institutions in association with Southern New Hampshire College. It is their case that the plaintiffs, since last two decades, are conducting various education courses in the field of technology, management, hotel management etc. It is their case that the plaintiffs were notified as ITM University by Chhattisgarh Government. It is also their case that the institutions of the plaintiffs are recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and their courses have received accreditation. The students after passing the course from their institutions have got placements in various reputed concerns. It is their case that the plaintiffs have adopted the trademark "Institute for Technology and Management ITM" for last several years and have made huge expenditure on advertisement and, as such, the word "ITM" has become synonymous with the plaintiffs' educational activity. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that recently before filing of this suit, on 18 th March 2010, one student desirous of seeking admission in the plaintiffs' institute for technology and management pointed out the allegations made against ITM Gurgaon. It is the case of the plaintiffs that only after the information was given by the said student the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants were using a similar and deceptive mark as that of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the plaintiffs then issued notices to the defendants asking them to refrain from using the plaintiffs' trademark. However, since even after receipt of the notices, the defendants did not stop using the said trademark, the plaintiffs were required to file the present suit along with notice of motion.

(3.) Heard Shri Kadam, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs and Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants.