FORESIGHT SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT V. ASHISH JAIN AND ORS

NLS 4/5/2009/TM/Del.

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

CS(OS) No.613/2007

Judgment

  1. This is a suit by the plaintiff, namely, Foresight Society of Human Resources and Development against defendants No.1, 2 & 3 praying for the following reliefs:-

“(i) An order of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants may be passed whereby restraining the defendants, their servants, agents or any other person acting on their behalf from copying/using the trademark of the plaintiff, i.e. “F-TEC” Computer Education, in any manner/deceptive manner.

(ii) An order of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants whereby restraining the defendants, their servants, agents or any other person acting on their behalf from passing off any material/goods/articles bearing the above trademark of the plaintiff in any manner or deceptive manner to anyone.

(iii) A decree of damages be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the amount of Rs.20,05,000/-.

(iv) An order of rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants on account of copying and use of the trademark of the plaintiff and a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff in the amount so ascertained.

(v) An order for deliver up all infringing materials including pamphlets, books, boards, etc. bearing the impugned marks, labels, patches, etc. and of blocks, dyes, stationery and any other printed matter bearing the impugned marks.

(vi) An order for costs of the suit.”

2. The facts are as under:-

The plaintiff is a Society registered and incorporated under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. The suit has been filed through its duly constituted attorney, namely, Shri Sanjeev Sindhu. The Society is involved in computer training/education development programmes and is running about 120 computer education/training centers all over India through its franchisees under the name and style of “F-TEC Computer Education”.

It is claimed that the plaintiff is running its centers for the last number of years and from December 30, 2005 it has even got its trade name “F-TEC” registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is also claimed that over the years, the plaintiff has acquired a reputed name in the field of computer education/training programmes and about 35000 students are receiving training at its computer centers.

The details of the approximate expenses incurred by the plaintiff in publicity and advertisement of the above trademark and the details of the turnover/revenue generated from the year 2004 to 2007 are as under:-

 

Year

 

Total Revenue/Turnover in Rs. Total expenses on advertisement in Rs.
2004-2005 10,13,05,858/- 90,55,452/-
2005-2006 12,09,73,733/- 1,12,90,812/-
2006-2007 11,00,50,016/- 1,25,85,657/-

Total                  33,23,29,607/-           3,29,31,921/-

  1. It is alleged by the plaintiff that one of its franchisees who is running computer education center in the name of M/s Sky Infotech situated at Fahan International School, behind B-3 Market, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi informed on February 10, 2007 that the defendants have infringed its trademark inasmuch as they are running computer education center at B-2/19-A, behind B-Block Bus Stand, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in the name and style of “F-TECH computer education”. It is further alleged that the trade name F-TECH adopted by the defendants is deceptively similar to the trade name F-TEC of the plaintiff not only in name but also in colour scheme, font, style and get-up. As per the plaintiff, defendants by adopting the trade name F-TECH are riding on its reputation and are defrauding the public at large.
  1. Despite service of summons upon the defendants, none appeared for defendants No.1 & 3 and it was only defendant No.2 who responded to the summons.
  2. During the course of proceedings, plaintiff entered into a settlement with defendant No.2 and consequently, vis-à-vis him withdrew the suit. As regards defendants No.1 & 3, they were proceeded ex-parte.
  1. The plaintiff in support of its case against defendants No.1 & 3 has filed affidavit by way of evidence of its duly constituted attorney, Shri Sanjeev Sindhu. The said attorney has reiterated the facts as stated in the plaint and has also proved on record the power of attorney executed in his favour to institute the suit as Ex.PW-1/1. He has also proved copy of Trademark Registration Certificate in favour of the plaintiff dated December 30, 2005 as Ex.PW-1/2, copy of prospectus showing the trademark of the plaintiff running in 40 pages as Ex.PW-1/3, copy of the promotion pamphlet having the trademark of the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/4, copy of the advertisement as Ex.PW-1/5, copy of the letter received from its franchise M/s Sky Infotech informing the plaintiff about infringement of its trademark as Ex.PW-1/6, copy of the pamphlet got issued by the defendants showing the infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/7, photographs showing the boards displayed by the defendants as Ex.PW-1/8 & Ex.PW-1/9, copy of the complaint made to the S.H.O., Police Station Malviya Nagar against the defendants as Ex.PW-1/10 and copy of the same sent to the Commissioner of Police as Ex.PW-1/11.

 

  1. On a perusal of the record and also from what has been noticed above, I find that the averments made in the plaint have been substantially and in material particulars proved through the affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Sindhu. There is no rebuttal to the case set-up by the plaintiff against defendants No.1 & 3. I, therefore, have no reason to doubt the correctness of the same.
  2. On March 20, 2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff had made a statement that he was not pressing the prayers for damages and rendition of accounts against defendants No.1 & 3. Accordingly, I hereby pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining defendants No.1 & 3, their servants, agents or any other person acting on their behalf from using the trademark “F-TECH” or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark “F-TEC”. Decree-sheet be drawn.

 

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MAY 04, 2009