Delhi District Court
Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta ... vs Saurabh Bhardwaj And Ors on 23 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF AMIT KUMAR : DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-01
ROHINI COURTS, North District : DELHI
(Commercial Case No.333/2019)
CNR No. DLNT-004836-2019
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA
MISSION, A TRUST REGISTERED
UNDER THE INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUST ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT FLAT NO.15,LIG FLATS,
G.H-1,SECT.29ROHINI
DELHI-85,
THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE,
SH.AKSHAY SINGH
......
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SAURA BHBHARDWAJ (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
NEAR JARTOLI MORE, INFRONT OF TALAB
JATTARI ALIGARH-(U.P.)-202137
Mob.: 9927292060, 9084767670
2. TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
(KAVYA EDUCATION INSTITUTE)
TETIGAOTIRAHA, NEAR CENTRAL BANK, PALWAL
ROAD
KHAIR DISTRICT ALIGARH (U.P.)-202138
MOB.: 976161310O Digitally
signed by
AMIT AMIT KUMAR
Date:
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors.KUMAR
Page No.1 of 19 2025.08.23
16:33:33
+0530
3. SHRI RAM KUMAR TOMAR (SO CALLED
SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
ARJUN COMPLEX, SBI ATM BUILDING
SASNI, DISTRICT-ALIGARH (U.P.)-202001
Mob.: 9568767781
4. JITENDRA KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
BEHIND VISHAL PALACE,
NEAR BANSAL HOSPITAL
G.T. ROAD,ALIGARH-(U.P.)-202001
MOB.: 8859774774
5.YOGESH KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
HARDOI, BLOCK BIJOLI,
ATRAULI, DISTRICT ALIGARH (UP) 202280
MOB :9411208190
6. SAURABH KUMAR SHARMA
(SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
NEAR H.P. PETROL PUMP, RAILWAY FATAK,
JAMALPUR, ALIGARH (U.P.)-202002
MOB.: 8859774774
7. YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA(SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
THEKACHAURAHA, VILL.+POST-HASTPURTH. IGLAS
DISTRICT-ALIGARH (U.P.)-202002
MOB.: 7055448149
8. JITENDRA KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
Digitally
signed by
AMIT KUMAR
AMIT Date:
KUMAR
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.2 of 19 2025.08.23
16:33:41
+0530
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
CHATTARJI COMPOUND,
BEHIND SHIVA PETROL PUMP
PADAVDUBE, ALIGARH (U.P.)-202001
MOB.: 9319790179
9. VINOD KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
NEAR PULIYA, KAMALPUR BAY PASS ROAD,
NAGLAMANSI DISTRICT ALIGARH (U.P.)-202001
MOB.: 80777447339
10. DHIRENDRA KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
NEAR RAILWAY LINE, NEAR NAGAR PANCHAYAT
OFFICE,
RAYA DISTRICT-MATHÚRA (U.P.)-281204
MOB.: 9084559949
11. AKASH (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
VILLAGE- BAJNA, MAIN ROAD
DISTRICT-MATHÚRA (U.P.)-281204
MOB.: 9536010949, 9084559949
12. BHAAN SINGH (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
VILLAGE-SAHAR, MAIN ROAD(MAY VILLAGE SE AAGE)
GOVERDHAN, MATHURA-281502 (U.P.)
MOB.: 9536597778
13. SANJAY SINGH (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
KAILASH ROAD, NEAR HARYALIKISAAN BAZAR
VILLAGE-BALDEV, DISTRICT MATHURA (U.P.)-281301
Digitally signed
by AMIT
AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.3 of 19
Date:
2025.08.23
16:33:48 +0530
14. BRIJESH KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
VILLAGE -BAIDPURA
SAIFAI ROAD, ITAWA-(U.P.)-206002
MOB.: 9720758062
15. ANUJ KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
JAN SEVA KENDRA, SAIFAI ROAD,
BICHPURIKHERA (SUNHARA SE AAGE)
ITAWA-(U.P.)-206001
MOB.:7351865397
16. ANUJ DHANGHAR (SOCALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
BARHAN, TIRAHA, N.H.- 2 ROAD
ATMADPUR-DISTRICT-AGRA (U.P.)-283202
MOB.: 9410402015
17. JITENDRA KUMAR (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
ETAH ROAD, TEH.SE AAGE,
TUNDLA CIRCLE, TUNDLA
DISTRICT-FIROZABAD (U.P.)-283204
MOB.: 9639531632, 9759025057
18. AVDHESH (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
KASGANJ ROAD, SANKRA
DISTRICT-KASGANJ (U.P.)-
MOB.: 9536597778
19. IMRAN AHMED (SO CALLED SANCHALAK)
RAJEEV GANDHI YOUTH
COMPUTER SAKSHARTA MISSION
Digitally
THE ICAP KNOWLEDGE PARK, signed by
AMIT AMIT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.23
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.4 of 19 16:33:54
+0530
MADEENA MASJID STREET.
RAMRAJ COLONY, SIYANA-203412
DISTT.-BULANDSHAHR (UP)
PH.: 05736-272387,
MOB.: 9319361559, 9410435659
20. Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer
Saksharta Mission, a public Trust.
2nd floor, near H.P.Petrol Pump
New Market, Bongaon,
24 Paragnas (North)
West Bangal-743235
Through Dhruba Haldar trustee
2nd Address
Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer
Saksharta Mission
130/7, Dumdum Road
Near Jaharalal School
Indira Maidan, Dumdum
Kolkata-700074
21. Dhruba Haldar Trustee
Village Purbapara, Tillipara
Nutanpalli, Bongaon-17
Distt. 24, Paragnas (North)
West Bangal-743235
e-mail: [email protected]
Ph. 09733901259
......DEFENDANTS
Date of institution of case : 24.05.2019
Date of arguments : 02.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.08.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Present is a suit seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions, restraining infringement of Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.5 of 19 KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.23 16:34:06 +0530 registered trademark, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts etc. on the averments that plaintiff is a trust registered under the Indian Charitable Trust Act since 06.08.2015 under the name and style of Rajiv Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission (RGYCSM). The plaintiff is a non profitable trust engaged in imparting high class computer education at nominal fees. It is stated that since 1996, the parent organization of the plaintiff known as Rajasthan Lok Sewa Samiti was running a program in the name of Rajiv Gandhi Computer Saksharta Mission (RGCSM) for imparting computer education having operation in the State of Rajasthan only. Later it was decided to extend the working to entire India and to constitute a society and as such a society was got registered known as Rajiv Gandhi Computer Saksharta Society under unique Logo and artistic work, of the trade name under the Copyright Act. In 2013, the parent society devised a new computer program exclusively meant for youth of India and termed the same as Rajiv Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission (RGYCSM) and for this reason the plaintiff Trust was established and registered in 2015. The plaintiff also got trademark and logo registered under the Trades Marks Act with the Registrar of Trade Marks on 04.04.2018. The plaintiff is presently having 2500 centers across India and the plaintiff's program has gained popularity and has become household name by virtue of its specialized knowledge and expertise.
Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR Date:
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj ANDKUMAR Ors. Page No.6 of 19 2025.08.23 16:34:14 +0530
2. Further, recently it came to the notice the plaintiff that all the defendants jointly and openly using and infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and logo to gain financial profits. The defendants apart from violating the trade mark are also publishing advertisements in the newspapers to cheat the public at large. Defendant no. 21 originally was a franchise of the parent organization of the plaintiff during the period 2009-2013 in West Bengal. Defendant no.21 with dishonest intention formed a trust on 03.03.2014 in the name of defendant no. 20 in the style of Rajiv Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission, despite knowing the resolution passed by the parent organization to launch the plaintiff society. Defendant no. 21 also applied for registration of identical trade mark in class 41 and on filing of the opposition by the plaintiff did not respond, resulting in abandonment order passed by the Trade Mark Registrar. Defendant no. 20 & 21 also abandoned their copy right application. Defendant no. 21 again applied for registration of similar trade mark on 02.01.2018 but instead of using their own registered mark started infringing and passing of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff. The reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff is adversely effected due to this infringement and hence this suit.
3. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, & 16 to 19 filed joined written statement stating that these defendants have never done any infringement as alleged. Though plaintiff was running a society in the name of Rajiv Gandhi Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.7 of 19 KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.23 16:34:22 +0530 Computer Saksharta Society in Rajasthan but was not running with the title Rajiv Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission at that time. The plaintiff after seeing the education centers of the defendants has started using the name used by the defendants. Defendants are using their registered trade mark registered in the clause 41 whereas plaintiff got registered its trademark under clause 35 which is different. The defendants got the trust in the name of Rajiv Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission registered on 03.03.2014 in Calcutta, West Bengal and it is an autonomous body registered under the Public Trust Act and this suit has been filed only to harass the defendants.
4. Defendants 20 & 21 filed their joint separate written statement claiming that the word "Rajiv Gandhi"
cannot be used for exclusive use and is common in almost every part of India and no monopoly can be extended to any single person for this word. The trust founded by the defendant no. 21 i.e. defendant no. 20 is registered since 03.03.2014 and is prior in use as compared to the plaintiff. The defendants are prior adopter and user of the word RGYCSM. It was however, admitted that defendant no. 21 was franchise of parent organization of the plaintiff during 2009-2013.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 14.01.2025 :
Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR AMIT Date:
KUMAR CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.8 of 192025.08.23 16:34:30 +0530
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if yes,, at what amount ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over the use of word Rajiv Gandhi as prayed for ? OPD
5. Whether the defendants are prior user and adopter of the word RGYCSM ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is barred by Limitation ? OPD
7. Relief.
6. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined its trustee as PW-1 whereas defendant no. 21 appeared as a witness for defendant no. 20 & 21. The other defendants did not examine any witness and as a matter of fact are not appearing in this case since March 2023.
7. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff in the present case has proved its registered trademark and prior user. Defendant no.21 was a franchise of the plaintiff and can not be permitted to infringe the trademark of the plaintiff. Their trade mark application was abandoned by the defendants on opposition filed by the plaintiff. The user details in the application of the defendants was "proposed to be used" and defendants can not claim prior user. Defendants could not prove the prior user and suit should be decreed with costs. Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.9 of 19 Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.23
16:34:37
+0530
8. On behalf of the defendant no.20 and 21, it was argued that the defendants the present suit relates to the logo and not name. The logo of the defendants is duly registered and they are using the same. No monopoly can be granted for the word Rajiv Gandhi to anyone. The defendant no.20 trust was registered prior to the trademark registration application of the plaintiff. Defendants are using the trust name since 2014. Plaintiff could not establish its user prior to 16.11.2017 and suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. FINDINGS:-
The bone of contentions between the parties are prior user and monopoly over the word Rajiv Gandhi.
10. First I will take the issue of prior user. This is a question of fact. Admittedly, defendant no.21 was a franchise of parent organization of the plaintiff between 2009 to 2013. Defendant no.20 and 21 admitted this fact not only in their written statement but in evidence as well. The franchise documents Ex PW1/8 were admitted by DW-1 in his cross examination. These documents show that defendants were affiliated to Rajeev Gandhi Computer Saksharta Mission (R.G.C.S.M.) and as such this name was used by plaintiff at that time and was in existence since then. The period of affiliation was from December 2009 to 31st March 2014. Students were enrolled by defendant no.21 under the name of Rajeev Gandhi Computer Saksharta Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.10 of 19 KUMAR Date:
2025.08.23 16:34:45 +0530 Mission (R.G.C.S.M.) being a franchise of the plaintiff. So the defendants can not claim that this name was not used by the plaintiff before 2014, when defendant no.20 trust was founded. The only difference between the two names i.e. "Rajeev Gandhi Computer Saksharta Mission"
(R.G.C.S.M.) and "Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission" (R.G.Y.C.S.M.) is the addition of word YOUTH between the words Gandhi and Computer and the same does not make any difference.
11. Further, the application filed by the defendants for registration of Trademark Ex.PW1/10 and abandonment order are also relevant. The date of application is 31.03.2015 and user details are "proposed to be used".The trademark applied for was an image. The defendants therefore as per this application were not using this image mark applied for till 31.03.2015. The abandonment order reflects that the plaintiff filed opposition to this application and the defendants chose not to contest and abandoned their mark. So the prior user is not proved by the defendants.
12. The plaintiff on the other hand has proved user since 01.01.2010. The trademark of the plaintiff EX.PW1/9 under class 41 was applied on 16.11.2017 with date of user since 01.01.2010. Th same was registered on 27.07.2021. This is also an image mark. Once the mark was registered, the same relates back to its date of use which was 01.01.2010. So the plaintiff has proved that plaintiff was Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.11 of 19 KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.23 16:34:53 +0530 using the image mark since 2010. It has the complete name which is in dispute i.e. Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission. (RGYCSM)
13. Therefore, plaintiff has duly proved that it has been using the trademark image prior to the defendants and same is duly registered with Trademark Registry.
14. Coming to the second aspect of monopoly over the word Rajeev Gandhi. It is correct that in case of a name the courts should be reluctant in protecting common names yet the fact remains that if it is proved that the name has become distinct by its use then protection should be granted or else whether the name alone is being used or is it a combination of several words.
15. In the present case the trade mark involved is not a standalone name. It is an image mark which not only consists of sentence Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission (RGYCSM) but also a torch with computer. It is a complete artistic work which also contains the name Rajeev Gandhi amongst other. The name cannot be read in isolation as argued for the defendants. Even otherwise, the descriptive and generic words can be used as trademark if due to continuous use they have acquired secondary meaning. Further, even if these two words are generic, yet it is the plaintiff who has combined these two Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR Date:
KUMAR CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.12 of2025.08.23 19 16:34:59 +0530 words with other words to impart computer education to youth of the nation.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73 was hearing an appeal where the trial court and the Hon'ble High Court refused to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the two names in question i.e. "Falcigo" and "Falcitab". The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the orders passed by the trial court and the High Court but laid down the principles on which the cases relating to infringement and passing off should be decided.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case referred to another judgement of Supreme Court passed in the case of Amrit Dhara Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the trade name Amritdhara and Laxmandhara are likely to deceive the public and cause confusion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that both products are medicinal preparations and purchased mostly by people who instead of going to a doctor wish to purchase the medicine over the counter and includes literate as well as illiterate purchasers. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed that the word Dhara literally means currant or stream but that by itself is not decisive of the matter. The court has to consider overall similarity of the composite words having Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.13 of 192025.08.23 16:35:06 +0530 regard to the circumstances that the goods bearing two names are medicinal preparations of the same description. The Hon'ble Court observed:-
"A critical comparison of the two names may disclose some points of difference but an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be deceived by the overall similarity of the two names having regard to the nature of the medicine he is looking for with somewhat vague recollection that he had purchased a similar medicine on a previous occasion with similar name. The trademark is a whole thing-- a whole word has to be considered."
18. Similarly in another case titled as Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navratana Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trademarks in controversy were Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories and Navaratna Pharmacy. In that case, the trial court has held that the word Navratna is a common word in Ayurvedic phraseology and plaintiff could not claim an exclusive title to use that word by the reason of having used it for number of years. The trial court found that there were several concerns manufacturing ayurvedic preparations for a long time, which includes and described their product by calling them Navratna alone or in combination with other words and resultantly the right of the plaintiff to relief on ground of infringement of the mark was disallowed. However, on the question whether the mark "Navratna Pharmaceutical laboratories" could be validly registered the trial court answered in the affirmative and plaintiff was granted a Digitally signed by CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.14 of 19 AMIT KUMAR AMIT Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.23 16:35:32 +0530 decree for injunction confined to the trademark Navaratan Pharmaceutical Laboratories. In appeal, the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the findings of the trial court. The matter came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court where the Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the law on the issue held that the conclusion reached by the courts below that the appellants mark is deceptively similar cannot be stated to be erroneous.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment referred to Kerly on trademark 8th Edition, 407 and quoted "where common marks are included in the trade marks to be compared or in one or in one of them, the proper course is to look at the marks as wholes and not to disregard the parts, which are common". In the case of T.V. Venugopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Limited and Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court protected the brand name "Eenadu" which was a descriptive word meaning "Today" in Telugu language as it had acquired a secondary meaning because of it user over a long period.
20. In view of these judgments, even the names and generic words can be protected, if they acquire a meaning of their own and public identifies those words with particular source. The image trademark of the plaintiff Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission (RGYCSM) is entitled to be protected even if it contains the word Rajeev Gandhi.
Digitally
signed by
AMIT AMIT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.15 of 19 2025.08.23 16:35:41 +0530
21. Coming to the trademark of the defendants Ex DW1/8. It is a device trademark containing only one torch with computer. There are no words used in it as in the image trade mark of the plaintiff. Despite that defendants are using the words Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission (RGYCSM) in their letters, certificates etc. along with mark EX DW1/8. The same is complete violation of plaintiff's Trademark and defendants can not be permitted to use these words in their business activities.
22. Coming to the aspect of copyright of the defendants, the copyright registration of the defendant is subsequent to that of the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. The same does not give a right to the defendant to violate the trademark of the plaintiff nor it nullify the trademark of the plaintiff. The defendant till date has not challenged the trademark of the plaintiff by filing objections before the Trademark registry claiming that the trademark of the plaintiff violates the provisions of the Trademark Act. The defendant cannot be permitted to violate the trademark of the plaintiff only by claiming that it has a registered copyright over its logo.
23. In view of above discussion and law and facts proved on record, my issue wise findings are as under:
Digitally ISSUE No. 1 and ISSUE No. 2 signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.08.23 16:35:49 +0530 CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.16 of 19
24. The onus of proving these issues was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff in order to prove this issue has proved on record its trademark duly registered with the trademark authority, which otherwise is not disputed. Defendants have failed to prove prior user or aspect of monopoly. The plaintiff as such has proved both these issues.
ISSUE NO. 3:
25. The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed damages for a sum of Rs. 9.5 Lac against all the defendants or Rs.50,000/- each against every defendant. Except of defendant no.20 and 21, no other defendant contested the matter but in the written statements they all admitted that they are using the mark of the plaintiff, which is duly registered. Plaintiff has not proved any document on record to show that the plaintiff has suffered any damages to the tune of Rs. 9.5 Lac. The plaintiff was required to prove the documents to prove that it has suffered damages on account of defendants. No effort was made during the trial to prove books of accounts nor any effort was made to summon the books of accounts of the defendants or to prove the losses suffered by plaintiff. Plaintiff however has proved infringement of its registered trademark. Plaintiff shall be entitled to nominal damages of Rs. 50,000/ each against every defendant. The issue is decided accordingly. Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.23 CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.17 of 16:35:57 19 +0530 ISSUE NO. 4 and ISSUE NO. 5
26. The burden was on defendants. As already discussed, defendants could not prove these facts and issues are decided against them.
ISSUE NO. 627. The burden was on defendants. No arguments were advanced as to how suit is barred by limitation. Infringement other wise in continuous breach. Suit is in limitation and issue is not proved by the defendants.
RELIEF:
28. In view of my findings given on the above issues, the suit is decreed and a decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant(s) itself and through its proprietors, partners, directors, agents, representatives, assigns, heirs, successors, for and on its behalf running, advertising, directly/indirectly dealing in computer education and skill development programs,from printing,publishing,distributing any kind of document,pamphlets under the trademark/name/logo of Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission (RGYCSM) or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff.
Digitally
signed by
AMIT AMIT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.18 of 19 2025.08.23 16:36:05 +0530
29. Defendants are also directed to destroy all offending material/documents and take down all offending material from digital platforms running in the name and style of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
30. As far as the prayer for damages is concerned, the defendants malafidely infringed the trademark of the plaintiff and tried to pass off their product as that of plaintiff's. Plaintiff is given nominal damages of Rs. 50,000/- each against every defendant in lieu of its prayer for rendition of accounts and damages.
31. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the proportionate cost of the suit.
32. Decree sheet be prepared.
33. Copy of the judgment be sent to all the parties by electronic mode, if available or otherwise.
34. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
Announced in open court today i.e. on by AMIT
23rd August 2025 AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.08.23
16:36:19 +0530
(AMIT KUMAR)
District Judge, Comm. Court-01
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS COMM) 333/2019 Rajeev Gandhi Youth Computer Saksharta Mission vs. Saurabh Bhardwaj AND Ors. Page No.19 of 19