The Delhi High Court in case of Keshav Kumar Aggarwal v. M/S NIIT LTD. in CS (OS) No. 2237 /2012 restrained NIIT Ltd. from using the expression “TURNING POINT” along with their mark NIIT for computer training program as the mark was deceptively similar to the name of Plaintiff institution (M/S Turning Point). The Delhi High court was hearing the application of Keshav Kumar Aggarwal under Order 39 of CPC, 1908 who was seeking ad-interim injunction against the use of “Turning Point” by NIIT. The primary issue in the suit was whether the plaintiff deserved interim protection in form ad-interim injunction against the use of “Turning point” by NIIT. The Plaintiff was running an educational and coaching institution providing training to students for various competitive exams under the Firm name of “Turning Point” since 1998 and had also registered “Turning point” as Trademark/label in 2005 in class 41 for education services, training, and Entertainment, Sporting and Cultural activities. The Plaintiff institution had acquired substantial good will and reputation in the market and the mark/label was identified with the Plaintiff institution. The plaintiff submitted that use of “Turning point” by defendant was violating the statuary and common law rights vested in them and was a deliberate act of unfair competition on behalf of the defendants that amounted to passing off and was causing substantial loss and damage to the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff. The defendant (NIIT) on the other hand submitted that the plaintiff mark was a label mark and it had pre-fixed its mark NIIT with “turning point” clearly distinguishing its mark from plaintiff label mark. NIIT also submitted that the word “Turning point” were common dictionary words in English language that could not be monopolised as these were often used in respect to education and training services. Therefore, question before the Delhi High Court was whether there was prime facie case in favour of plaintiff for the grant of injunction. The plaintiff were also required to show that balance of convenience was in their favour and irreparable loss and damage shall be caused in case injunction was not granted against the use of “Turning point” by NIIT. The court rejected all contentions of NIIT and observed that plaintiff had registered trademark in “Turning point” and the mark of NIIT was deceptively similar to the plaintiff‘s mark. The Court said that the defendants- NIIT cannot distinguish its mark from that of plaintiff by merely pre fixing its mark NIIT to that of plaintiff mark. The court also said this cannot be possible as both the marks are being used for same class of services i.e. educational services. The court further said that NIIT cannot ride upon the goodwill and business built up by comparatively smaller service provider that was working in the same field for over a decade under the garb of defence that it has clearly distinguished its mark with that of other service provider by prefixing its own mark with the former mark so as to avoid confusion in the market. The court said that the defendant’s mark in fact created confusion in the minds of public at large and the use is required to be injuncted. The Court also said the long interrupted usage of mark “Turning point” has led to services rendered by plaintiff being identified as solely originating from plaintiff. The court also said that it cannot be said that written words in label mark are not registered when label mark in itself is registered as trademark. The Court also said that it cannot be said that NIIT was unaware of the presence of plaintiff and had in fact filed opposition against other service providers using “Turning point” in Chennai. The Court granted interim relief to plaintiff and injuncted NIIT from using “Turning point”. The Court also said that plaintiff had successfully proved balance of convenience in their favour and irreparable loss shall be caused in case no injunction was granted. The court however, said that nothing expressed in the judgment shall be treated as expression on merits of the case.
The Delhi High Court has only granted an interim relief through this judgment but this judgment is highly significant as it has enforced the notion that Intellectual Property is an extremely important asset for “every” company.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
