Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Triumphant Institute of Management Education (P) Ltd. for its mark “T.I.M.E.” against “T.I.M.E. Tirupati”

Delhi High Court: In an instant case wherein, the plaintiff, Triumphant Institute of Management Education (P) Ltd. approached the Court seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants as they were using an identical acronym “T.I.M.E.”, along with “Tirupati”, C. Hari Shankar, J.*, passed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants as well as all others acting on their behalf from providing any services, advertising and/or promoting or using any mark which includes, as part thereof, “T.I.M.E” or from using the impugned logo , for providing coaching or educational services or any services which were allied or cognate.

Background

The plaintiff had a comprehensive chain of coaching institutes and training centres operating across the country, providing training for examinations to be undertaken by aspirants seeking entry into institutes of higher education. The plaintiff was the proprietor of the following registrations,, , , , etc. The plaintiff claimed that with the passage of time, the “T.I.M.E.” mark had become the source identifier of the plaintiff and by virtue of the registrations held by it, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (’the Act’), the plaintiff was entitled to defend itself against infringement of the said mark under Section 28(1) read with Section 29 of the Act as well as against any attempt by any person to pass off his/her services as services rendered by the plaintiff.

Aggrieved by the use of an identical acronym “T.I.M.E.”, along with “Tirupati” by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the present suit. It was submitted by the plaintiff that the efendants were providing services identical to those provided by the plaintiff and were advertising such services on various virtual channels including social media platforms such as Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube.

By virtue of a franchise agreement dated 16-02-2013, the plaintiff had allowed Defendant 2 to run their coaching centres under the mark/name “T.I.M.E.”. However, the said agreement, after having been renewed twice, was terminated on 15-02-2020. The use, by the defendant, of the mark “T.I.M.E.” after that was therefore alleged to be infringing of the plaintiff’s registered trade marks.

It was alleged that the defendants continued using the impugned mark “T.I.M.E. Tirupati” and the plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendants in 2022, calling on the defendants to cease and desist from using the mark “T.I.M.E. Tirupati” or any other mark which incorporated “T.I.M.E.”, which was the dominant and identifying feature of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff. As the defendants did not desist from continuing to use the impugned mark, the plaintiff approached this Court to seek a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from using “T.I.M.E. Tirupati” and any part of the mark/name used by the defendants for the services rendered by them including the impugned mark .

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court opined that the assertions in the plaint made a clear case of infringement by the defendants of registered trade marks of the plaintiff. The Court noted that the plaintiff had several trade marks which involved “T.I.M.E” as the dominant part thereof. The Court relied on South India Beverages (P) Ltd v. General Mills Marketing Inc., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953, wherein it was held that “when the dominant part of the mark was copied, then a finding of infringement would necessarily had to be returned”.

The Court opined that “the plaintiff and the defendants were providing identical services and, therefore, catered to the same customer base. As such, the classical test of triple identity, which envisaged congruence of similar or identical marks, an identical customer base and availability of access to the marks through the same channels and outlets, was also satisfied in the present case”. Further, Section 29(2)(b) of the Act envisaged infringement as having taken place where, owing to similarity between the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant and identity or similarity of the goods and services in respect of which the marks were used, there existed a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public or a likelihood of the public drawing an association between the defendants and the plaintiff’s marks.

The Court also relied on Shree Nath Heritage Liquor (P) Ltd v. Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10164, and opined that a mythical consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, through whose eyes infringement had to be assessed by the Court, would, after coming across the defendant’s mark and later the plaintiff’s mark, be bound to be placed in a state of confusion, or at the very least in the state of wonderment, as to whether there was no association between the two marks.

The Court passed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants as well as all others acting on their behalf from providing any services, advertising and/or promoting or using any mark which includes, as part thereof, “T.I.M.E” or from using the impugned logo , for providing coaching or educational services or any services which were allied or cognate. The Court opined that the recalcitrant attitude of the defendants was also reflected from the fact that, at some point, reflecting an intention to settle the matter, the defendants chose to back out. Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff would be entitled to the actual costs of the suit.

[Triumphant Institute of Management Education (P) Ltd. v. T.I.M.E. Tirupati, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6236, Judgement dated 05-10-2023]

*Judgement authored by – Justice C. Hari Shankar

---

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Lakshay Kaushik, Advocate