Triumphant Institute of Management Education v. Aspiring Mind Assessment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
13.05.2014: CS(OS) No. 1058 of 2014 before the High Court of Delhi
Plaintiff claimed to be proprietor of the mark AIMCAT in Classes 16 and 41 claiming user from 2002. Defendant was using AMCAT since 2008 and the same was an abbreviation for Aspiring Minds Computer Adaptive Test.
The Plaintiff was given an ex parte injunction on the first date of hearing.
The Defendant moved an application for vacation of stay on the ground of material concealment and suppression.
The Court observed that the Plaintiff had pleaded knowledge since November, 2013 but had actual knowledge since May, 2013 as they had proposed a collaboration with the Defendant. Plaintiff had also not disclosed that the Defendant was dealing in a different industry (Aptitude Test for Job Seekers but not conducting any training programme) in respect of which it was a regd. Proprietor in Class 35.
The Court found such acts on part of the Plaintiff to be Material Concealment not entitling him to injunction against the Defendant.
As the Defendant was a Registered Proprietor in respct of it’s Services, the Court was of the opinion that as per Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the present suit os not maintainable. Plaintiff submitted that an infringement action is maintainable against another registered proprietor.
In this regard the Court observed, “that an infringement action lie against an another Regd. Proprietor provided conditions in Section 124 are satisfied, the Court held that the only condition when the section 124 may come in operation is envisaged in Section 124 (1) (b) (ii) but that is also conditioned with the court forming a prima facie view that the registration of the trade mark of either party is invalid while as in the instant case, it is neither the case of the plaintiff not that of the defendants that the trade mark of the opposite side is invalid. So Section 124 does not come into operation at all.”
On Merits the Court observed “if one sees the trademarks of the plaintiff and the defendants, there are distinctive features which go to show that as the consumer of services of both the plaintiff and the defendants are educated people and there is no likelihood of any prospective customer being mislead so as to associate the trade mark of the defendants with that of the plaintiff”
The ex parte stay was vacated.