Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajiv Gandhi Computer Shiksha Mission ... vs Rajeev Gandhi Computer Shaksharta ... on 16 March, 2023
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
$~S-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 65/2023 & CM APPLs.12638-12640/2023
RAJIV GANDHI COMPUTER SHIKSHA MISSION (RGCSM)
AND ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Pranab Kumar Mullick, Advocate
with Mrs. Soma Mullick and
Mr.S.K.Deuria, Advocates.
versus
RAJEEV GANDHI COMPUTER SHAKSHARTA MISSION
(RGCSM) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Anil Sehgal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 16.03.2023 CM APPL.12640/2023 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CM APPL.12639/2023Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. FAO (COMM) 65/2023 & CM APPL.12638/2023 Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26th September, 2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS DJ 199/21, whereby the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:17.03.2023 18:44:33 Appellants have been restrained from dealing in computer education and skill development programmes under their own trade mark/trade name/logo of 'Rajeev Gandhi Computer Shiksha Mission (RGCSM)' or any other mark/marks identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark/copyright of the Respondent.
Learned counsel for the Appellants states that the learned District Judge erred in not appreciating that the appellants have copyright registration as well as registration under Class 45 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('the Act') and the registration under Class 41 of the Act is under objection. He also contends that the learned District Judge erred in not appreciating that the specific condition of registration of the respondent's trademark specifically stipulated that the respondent would not have the exclusive right to use the 'RGCSM Rajeev Gandhi Computer Shaksharta Mission' trademark. He states that the respondent's mark is pending rectification.
He further states that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate that the words 'Rajeev Gandhi' or 'Rajiv Gandhi' being the name of the former Prime Minister, is not distinctive and no exclusivity could be claimed in respect thereof. He further states that the words 'computer' and 'mission' are common to the trade of computer training institute and hence the Respondent cannot claim any exclusive right in respect of usage of the said words.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the paperbook, this Court finds that it is not only difficult but impossible for an ordinary person to discern the difference between the two trade Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:17.03.2023 18:44:33 names/trademarks/logos, as the only difference is the word "SHIKSHA" being used by the Appellants instead of "SHAKSHARTA".
This Court is of the prima facie view that the adoption of the mark in question by the appellants is not bona fide since the trade name/trademark/logo of the Respondents has been registered w.e.f. 2005. In any event the appellant was well aware of the use of the mark "Rajeev Gandhi Computer Shaksharta Mission" and "RGSCM" by the respondent, as the appellant was respondent's franchisee during 2010-2014.
This Court is in agreement with the prima facie view of the learned Trial Court that after the termination of the franchisee agreement between the parties in 2015, Appellants adopted the trade name/trademark almost similar to that of the Respondents in order to confuse and deceive the public at large and to pass off their own services as that of the Respondents.
Further, the arguments regarding the invalidity of the Respondent's trademark appear to be totally misconceived and untenable for the reason that the Appellants themselves have not assailed the trademark/trade name of the Respondent trust before the trademark registry.
In Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, the Supreme Court has delineated the principle on which a Division Bench shall interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:17.03.2023 18:44:33 to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [(1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156] : (SCR 721) "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] '...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case'."
The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.
Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, this Court is of the view that the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in the present case cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse.
Consequently, the present appeal along with pending application stands dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J MARCH 16, 2023 TS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:17.03.2023 18:44:33