Vogue Readers Know It Doesn't Run Any Institute, Confusion Unlikely: Karnataka High Court, Allows Vogue Institute Of Management To Retain Name

Justice M I Arun while allowing the appeal filed by the institute said, "The trial court  ... has applied the test i.e., applicable to a common man who would get confused by the use of the word 'VOGUE' itself and has come to the erroneous conclusion that the defendants' institute can be passed off as the institute of the plaintiff."

Case Details:

Advance Magazine Publishers, the publishers of the famous 'Vogue' magazine in March 1998 had come to know about the defendants running a training institute under the name and style of 'VOGUE Institute of Fashion Technology' and using the slogans like 'VOGUE' the great career option.

Hence, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the college management on 31.03.1998. The defendants gave an untenable reply, as per the publishers. Hence, the suit was filed for permanent injunction and rendering of accounts. The trial court in 2014 allowed the suit.

The high court said the college management are not publishing a magazine called 'VOGUE' but are running an institution. Thus, there is no infringement of trademark, it added.

"It is an action for violation of common law rights and is enforceable in respect of all trademarks registered or unregistered. False and misleading representation resulting in deception or confusion is the key to the answer. The only aspect to be considered is whether the mark is likely to deceive or confuse the public who may buy defendants' goods as if they were the plaintiff's goods."

The bench then considered the aspect of the nature of goods/services in respect of which the word 'VOGUE' is used by the plaintiff and the defendants and the class of purchasers who are likely to buy goods/services offered by the plaintiff and the defendants and based on their education, intelligence and the degree of care they are likely to exercise in availing the magazine of the plaintiff or the services of the defendants and are they likely to get confused.

"The magazine which is published by the plaintiff is a fashion magazine which is not subscribed or read by a large section of the general public. It is used by that limited section of the Society who are generally aware about fashion. The kind of purchasers who subscribe to the magazine of the plaintiff are likely to know that the plaintiff's magazine is involved only in the business of publishing magazines and not running any institute," said the court.

The court added that similarly persons who join the institute are those who have knowledge about the fashion world and taking into consideration the degree of care that an average student is likely to exercise, it is highly unlikely that they would confuse the institute of the defendants as one belonging to the publishers.

"The trial court has failed to appreciate the aforementioned factor," said the court, while allowing the appeal

Case Title: MR. M.M. KARIAPPA & ANR v. ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, INC.

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.106 OF 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 472

Date of Order: 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

Appearance: S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SUMANA NAGANAND & VIKRAM U.R, FOR M/S.JUST LAW, ADVOCATES for appellants.

ARAVIND KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR VENKATA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE for respondent.