Delhi HC Denies Interim Relief To Ivy League Princeton University In Trademark Suit Against Hyderabad-Based 'Princeton' Schools & Colleges
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because several Indians may have studied in the prestigious Princeton University in the United States would not amount to “use” by the American Ivy League college of its “Princeton” mark in India for providing its services in terms of the Trade Marks Act. “Reference to Indian students studying at Princeton, howsoever large the number,...
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because several Indians may have studied in the prestigious Princeton University in the United States would not amount to “use” by the American Ivy League college of its “Princeton” mark in India for providing its services in terms of the Trade Marks Act.
“Reference to Indian students studying at Princeton, howsoever large the number, cannot amount to the plaintiff providing services, in India, under the PRINCETON mark. Opening of centres in the plaintiff-institution in the US, dealing with Indian subjects, Indian studies, or Indian cultural activities, too, does not reflect use, by the plaintiff, of the PRINCETON mark in India prior to 1991,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.
The court made the observation while denying interim relief to Princeton University in its suit against six Hyderabad based educational institutions alleging infringement of its mark “Princeton.”
The suit was filed against Vagdevi Educational Society which runs the Princeton School of Education, Princeton School of Engineering and Technology, Princeton Degree and PG College, Princeton PG College of Information Technology, Princeton PG College of Management and Princeton College of Pharmacy.
Justice Shankar observed that there is no evidence of continuous use by the American Ivy League college of the “Princeton” mark prior to the year 1991, which was admittedly the date of first use by the defendant institutions of the impugned mark.
“The defendants have been using their mark, admittedly, since 1991. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff only in 2022. The defendants provide educational services, and have been providing the said services, under the impugned marks, for close on three decades as on date. No element of public interest can be said to exist in denying, to the defendants, the further right to use PRINCETON as part of the names of their institutions,” the court observed.
Furthermore, Justice Shankar said though both Princeton marks of the Princeton University and the defendant institutions are used in the context of providing educational services, it would be “facile and plainly unrealistic” to believe that any consumer would confuse the services provided by them.
“No student, or person interested in the services provided either by the plaintiff or by the defendants, is likely to be confused between the two, merely because of the use, by the defendants, of PRINCETON as part of the name of the defendants’ institutions. The plaintiff is, today, arguably the foremost higher educational institution in the world, and provides no services outside the US. The defendants’ institutions are situated entirely within the State of Telangana, and do not even have any branch outside the said State,” Justice Shankar said.
Justice Shankar further observed that admission to the US based institution is a formidable exercise which is nearly unattainable to all but the most extraordinary of students, whereas the defendants’ institutions are far more accessible and approachable.
“Zero, in all its multiples, remains zero. Multiplying references of newspaper articles published in India, which make reference to the plaintiff-institution located in the US cannot, viewed any which way, constitute “use”, by the plaintiff, of the PRINCETON mark in India, within the meaning of Section 2(2)(c)(ii) and, therefore, Section 34(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,” the court said.
It added that the Princeton University failed failed to produce on record any material indicating any statement by it about the availability, provision or performance of its services accessible in India prior to 1991, which is the undisputed date of user by the defendants.
“The mere facts that several Indians may have been educated in the plaintiff’s institution in the US, quite obviously, would not amount to “use”, by the plaintiff, of its PRINCETON mark in India for providing services,” the court said.
Case Title: THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY v. THE VAGDEVI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 806