Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Admission Overseas
Respondent / Defendant
Ravi Naik
Dispute Summary
The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Admission Overseas, restraining Ravi Naik from using the trademark 'ADMISSION OVERSEAS CONNECT' or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the defendant's use of the similar trademark was likely to cause confusion among the public and harm the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim for damages was rejected due to lack of evidence. The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the education sector.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 19 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi District Court Admission Overseas vs Ravi Naik on 14 July, 2026 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURTS-03 SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI In the matter of: CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 CNR No. DLSW01-002661-2022 Admission Overseas Through its Proprietor, Sh. Himanshu Barthwal Flat No. 49D, Pocket A Vikas Puri Extension, New Delhi-110018. ...Plaintiff Versus Ravi Naik A-115, C-58/29, Sector 62, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201307 Also At: MGR Estates F.No.201, 2nd Floor, Dwarkapuri Colony, Punjaguta, Hyderabad-500082 ...Defendant Date of institution 02.04.2022 Judgment reserved on 03.06.2026 Date of Judgment 14.07.2026 JUDGMENT 1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant under Section 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain infringement of Trade Mark, passing off, infringement of copyright and rendition of accounts. Judgment 1 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" Plaint 2. The plaintiff's case is that he is the sole proprietor of Admission Overseas since the year 2002 and now running his business from Hyderabad, Chandigarh and Kathmandu. 3. Plaintiff is using the trademark since 2002, in respect of overseas education consultant, education services, academy, advisory services relating to worldwide immigration, work permit, study visa, visitor visa, student visa, IELTS & TOEFL-based visas services, tour & travel services, and arrangements of travel documents, e-tickets and air tickets etc. 4. Plaintiff is the owner/proprietor and enjoys exclusive rights of the said distinctive trademark. He has taken trademark registration for and in various classes as under: Application Class Conflicting Journal Proprietor Status Image No 2639757 41 Admission 1785 Himanshu Registered Overseas Barthwal Global Education Consultants 4689847 39 Admission 1984 Himanshu Registered Overseas Barthwal 4689846 39 Admission Himanshu Objected Overseas Barthwal Connect Judgment 2 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" 5. It is stated that the plaintiff has adopted domain name comprising its trademark as its essential features i.e. www.admissionoverseas.com, which is his exclusive property. The said website has thousands of visits from students. 6. Plaintiff has averred that he got married to Ms. Minakshi Barthwal on 30.01.2001. In May, 2019, without any reason, Ms. Minakshi Barthwal abandoned plaintiff and went to Hyderabad along with their two daughters. Thereafter, the defendant who is his cousin, along with the wife of the plaintiff, started a parallel business in Hyderabad in March 2020, using similar trade name, 'Admission Overseas Connect' with the same trademark The defendant has obtained GST number in the name of 'Admission Overseas Connect', as a proprietor, which shows that he has deliberately adopted almost similar name by just affixing the word 'Connect' at the end of the words, 'Admission Overseas.' In the month of May 2020, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is marketing under the name of 7. 'Admission Overseas Connect', through the trademark of the plaintiff, by sending mails to the clients of the plaintiff, who in turn were getting confused as to whether it is the sister concern of the plaintiff, with whom they have been dealing for the last more than 10 years, or is a separate concern. The plaintiff has also filed a copy Judgment 3 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" of e-mail dated 11.05.2020, purportedly sent by the defendant, having the trademark of the plaintiff. 8. It is stated that the defendant opened two other parallel businesses in the name & style of "Enlighten Abroad" and "Enlighten Overseas" with e-mail IDs, [email protected] and [email protected] . In the e-mail received by the plaintiff from his business associates, they had claimed commissions of the persons who were sent through the new companies opened by the defendant. It is stated that these types of tactics adopted by the defendant are creating confusion in the public at large and are causing harm to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. 9. It is stated that the defendant also floated independent domains in the name & style of admissionoverseasconnect.com without the consent/knowledge of plaintiff. The defendant had also been misusing the registered logo and trademark of 'Admission Overseas' for his firm, "Admission Overseas Connect". 10.It is further stated that mobile no. 9347911874, which was being used in the business of the Admission Overseas, #602, Topaz Building, Amrutha Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, is also being flashed by the defendant in the Judgment 4 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" new business floated by him under the name, 'ENLIGHTEN OVERSEAS' to sabotage the clients of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the resemblance between the plaintiff's trademark and 'Admission Overseas Connect' of defendant is so close that it can hardly occur except by deliberate imitation. 11.It is averred that the defendant is not the original creator of the impugned Trademark/name/logo admission overseas and has no right to adopt or use the same as a trademark or as a copyright or in any other manner whatsoever including under the laws of equity, common law or statutory law in respect of the advisory services relating to worldwide immigration or otherwise being in complete violation of the Plaintiff aforesaid rights. 12.Plaintiff has averred that the impugned adoption and user by the Defendant is dishonest, tainted, malafide and fraudulent. The defendant adopted and started commercially using the impugned Admission overseas. trademark/name GLOBAL EDUCATION CONSULTANTS in respect of worldwide immigration services with a view to take advantage and trade upon the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff and further view to cause deception and confusion in the markets as that of plaintiff and to make easy money at the cost of Plaintiff. 13.It is stated that the resemblance between the plaintiff's trademark Admission Overseas GLOBAL EDUCATION Judgment 5 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" CONSULTANTS and Admission Overseas Connect of defendant is so close that it can hardly occur except by deliberate imitation but the defendant started using the said Admission trademark/name Admission Overseas GLOBAL EDUCATION CONSULTANTS in full knowledge of the Plaintiff's said rights. By such adoption confusion is caused to the public at large. 14.It is alleged that due to the defendant's impugned activities the plaintiff is suffering tremendously in business and goodwill and his proprietary rights are being violated and the loss of plaintiff cannot be calculated in terms of money and the plaintiff estimates that the damages from the infringing acts of the defendant to the tune of Rs 10,00,000/-. 15.By way of present suit, the plaintiff has sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing any Admission trademark or any other mark which is identical and similar to the plaintiff's trademark which may amount to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from using its trade name or logo or any other mark/logo which is identical and similar to the plaintiff's mark Admission Overseas which may amount to passing off. 16.The plaintiff has also sought a decree of damages for the an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, a decree of rendition of accounts to render all the accounts of profits illegally earned on account of the infringing activities. Judgment 6 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" Written Statement 17.The defendant filed written statement contesting the suit.In the written statement, it is stated that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The plaintiff has relied on certain e-mails which were never sent by the defendant or by the company of defendant. 18.Defendant has submitted that initially the company was started by Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal (wife of the plaintiff) in March, 2020, and thereafter, in June, 2020, she gave all the rights of the company to the defendant and he took over the company on verbal agreement between them. The defendant's company work includes consulting students for higher education in universities located overseas in countries like United Kingdom, Canada, USA etc. The defendant company does marketing by using social media and mass e-mails. 19.It is stated that Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal was a partner in plaintiff's business and she not only designed but also managed/took the business of the plaintiff to new pinnacles. 20.It is further stated that Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal and plaintiff got separated in 2019 because of the harassment caused to her by the plaintiff and it was settled between Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal and the plaintiff orally as well as by e-mail, that Mrs. Minakshi will start the business in Judgment 7 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" Hyderabad and the plaintiff will continue from Chandigarh. The defendant is the nephew of the plaintiff and he was working with the plaintiff from September, 2019 till May/June 2020. 21.It is further stated that the plaintiff asked the defendant to join his business, because the plaintiff had no one to take care of the business. The defendant went to Chandigarh to work with the plaintiff. After sometime due to some temperamental work culture as well as business issues, the defendant left the business of the plaintiff. 22.It is averred that the defendant has never used the plaintiff's trademark. The mail on which the plaintiff is relying, was sent by Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal as she was a partner with the plaintiff at that time. The defendant had not taken over the business, when the mail dated 11.05.2020 was sent. The class for both the businesses are different. It is stated that the plaintiff works under Trademark Class 41 and 39, as their business is related to Education and Travel but, the defendant is working as a Consultant in Class 35. The defendant has also challenged the validity of the plaintiffs' registration of trademarks. 23.It is further stated that the words, 'ADMISSION OVERSEAS' is in public domain, as several companies which are dealing in the business regarding overseas admission are using the term/expression. The words, 'ADMISSION OVERSEAS' denote the kind, quality, intended purpose of the service or product and define the Judgment 8 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" nature of goods/services involved. Thus, the plaintiff cannot have any monopoly in fact as well as in law and the defendant is statutorily entitled under Section 30 of the Trade marks Act, 1990 to use the same for bonafide purpose of denoting the kind, quality, intended purpose and nature of the services. 24.It is also stated that the alleged trademarks were not distinctive at the date of its registration and at any time after its registration in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs never had any right in the trade mark, 'ADMISSION OVERSEAS' and was never entitled to its registration. The alleged registration contains descriptive words, which are common to trade. Many persons/entities use this name. The plaintiffs themselves are using the said term to describe the nature of the services and the purpose for which it is required to be used. 25.It is further stated that the defendant are using the expression, 'AO CONNECT' to convey, suggest and/or to indicate the students and consult the students who wants to take admission outside India but on the other hand, the plaintiff is using the words, 'ADMISSION OVERSEAS' to provide admission to the people who want to study overseas. The expression, 'ADMISSION OVERSEAS' has been defined to mean and represent admission in overseas countries. It is indicative thereof and hence descriptive. The defendant cannot be stopped from using, 'ADMISSION OVERSEAS CONNECT', also Judgment 9 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" despite the fact that the defendant is using, 'AO CONNECT'. 26.It is also stated that the defendant took over the business in June 2020 and Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal gave all the rights to the defendant verbally. It is further stated that the defendant changed the name of the company to AO Connect and never used the trademark of the plaintiff. However, he is using the tradename, 'AO Connect' which is different from the plaintiff's trademark. The defendant was also at one point of time working with the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff terminated the defendant. 27.It is submitted that the defendant obtained the GST number in the name, 'Admission Overseas Connect' as a proprietorship concern with a bonafide intention as, 'Admission Overseas Connect' is a descriptive terms and cannot be registered as a trademark. With that intention the defendant took this name to obtain the GST number but the logo as well as name used by the defendant is just, 'AO Connect'. 28.It is submitted that the mail dated 11.05.2020, on which, the plaintiff has relied, was sent by the wife of the plaintiff i.e. Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal from her mail ID only when the said mail was sent, the defendant was not in the picture and nothing to do with the mail. 29.It is further stated that "Enlighten Abroad" and "Enlighten Overseas" are unknown to the defendant. The e-mail ID of Judgment 10 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" the defendant is, 'AOconnect.com' and he is using, 'AO CONNECT' logo which has nothing to do with the disputed trademark. The defendant had never used or infringed the trademark of the plaintiff. Replication 30.The plaintiff filed replication and denied the pleas raised in the written statement. Issues 31.Vide order dated 21.10.2023, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the defendant is infringing the plaintiff's trademarks viz. registered as Trademark no. 2639757 dated 09.12.2013, and (ii) registered as Trademark no. 4689847 dated 06.10.2020? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is passing off his services as those of the plaintiff? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction, as prayed in the prayer clause? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts, if so, from what period? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lac only), as prayed in the prayer clause? OPP. 6. Relief. Judgment 11 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" Evidence 32.To prove its case, the plaintiff Himanshu Barthwal examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He reiterated the averments made in the plaint and relied upon the following documents: i. Certificate of Registration of Trademark, as Ex.PW1/1. ii. Certificate of Registration of Trademark , as Ex. PW1/2. iii. Computer generated Trade Mark Search Report as Ex.PW1/3. iv. Copy of Income Tax Returns filed by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/4 (Colly). v. Copy of details of the official address of the plaintiff, as Ex. PW1/5. vi. Copy of Email dated 11.05.2020 sent by the defendant by affixing the trademark, ADMISSION OVERSEAS of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/6. vii. Copy of the Email dated 29.06.2020, received by the plaintiff from one of the business associates, namely, Focuz Global is Ex. PW1/7. viii. Copy of Email dated 26.08.2020, received by the plaintiff from another business associates, namely, Edusphere Overseas, as Ex.PW1/8. ix. Copy of Email dated 26.11.2019, sent by the defendant by affixing the trademark of the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/9. x. Copy of Email dated 27.11.2019, sent by the defendant by affixing the trademark of the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/10. Judgment 12 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" xi. Copy of mail dated 06.12.2019 is Ex. PW1/11. xii. Copy of GST Registration of the defendant as 'Admission Overseas Connect' is Ex. PW1/12. xiii. Copy of GST Registration of the defendant as 'AO Connect' is Ex. PW1/13. xiv. Copy of Facebook page of the defendant showing the infringement of the plaintiff's name is Ex. PW1/14. xv. Certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex. PW1/15.Certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with respect to documents Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/14 as Ex. PW1/16. 33.Defendant Ravi Naik examined himself as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/1. He relied upon following documents: 1. Copy of e-mail between plaintiff and his wife Ms. Minakshi Barthwal as Ex.DW1/A. 2. A copy of e-mail dated 07.07.2020 as Ex.PW1/D-1. Rival Contentions 34.Plaintiff has contended that the defendant did not file admission/denial affidavit of documents with respect to documents relied upon by the plaintiff so the averments made in the written statement cannot be accepted. It is submitted that report of local commissioner proves that defendant infringed the Trade Mark of the plaintiff. It is argued that entire cross examination of the plaintiff is beyond pleadings and in his statement recorded on 03.03.2023, the defendant undertook that he will not use the two logos of plaintiff as well as mark Admission Judgment 13 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" overseas connect therefore the only claim for damages is required to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as prayed for. 35.Defendant's Contention: It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the whole case of the plaintiff hinges upon an email dated 11.05.2020 (Ex.PW1/6) and this email was sent by Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal using the trademark logo which is claimed to belong to the plaintiff. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that, based on email, the alleged infringement was done by Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal, the cross examination of plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff himself permitted Minakshi Barthwal to use such trademark. The cross examination clearly evinces that subject Intellectual Property was a collective asset manifesting the goodwill created by contribution of Mrs. Minakshi Barthwal and precisely for this reason, there is no infringement of trademark by the defendant. 36.It is further argued that the plaintiff admitted in his cross- examination that his wife Minakshi Barthwal, was authorized to use the alleged infringed trademark. It is submitted that in these facts, Ms. Minakshi Barthwal was thus, a necessary party without whom no order could be made effectively. 37.It is also argued on the behalf of the defendant, that the e- mail dated 11.05.2020 was sent by the Minakshi Barthwal but neither Ms. Minakshi Barthwal nor Ms. Puspa Judgment 14 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" [ [email protected] Receiver of email] were examined by the plaintiff as a witness to support its case. Therefore, the said email is not proved. 38.It is further argued that the plaintiff is also not entitled for relief of damages because the plaintiff was not able to prove the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/- as damages. It is further argued that the plaintiff was unable to prove that by alleged infringement the defendant has made a profit, and by the act of defendant, plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 39.In support of the above contentions, the defendant has placed on reliance upon the judgments " Svapn Constructions vs. IDPL Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. (20.12.2005 DELHC) : MANU/DE/0060/2006, ii. Dhodha House and Ors. Vs. S.K.Maingi MANU/SC/2524/2005 , iii. Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0690/2010 and iv. Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority MANU/SC/0019/2015 ". 40.I have heard counsel for the parties at length. I have gone through the material on record and the written submissions filed on behalf of parties. Analysis Issue No.1: Whether the defendant is infringing the plaintiff's trademarks viz. registered as Trademark no. 2639757 dated 09.12.2013, and (ii) Judgment 15 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" registered as Trademark no. 4689847 dated 06.10.2020? OPP 41.The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's trademarks . The plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor of the trademarks "ADMISSION OVERSEAS GLOBAL EDUCATION CONSULTANTS" and "ADMISSION OVERSEAS" in respect of services relating to overseas education consultancy, travel and immigration assistance. The registration certificates have been proved as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2. 42.The defendant has not disputed the existence of the aforesaid registrations. His principal defence is that the expression "Admission Overseas" is descriptive in nature and that he was using only the expression "AO Connect". It has also been contended that the concern "Admission Overseas Connect" was initially started by Ms. Minakshi Barthwal and not by the defendant. 43. Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 confers upon a registered proprietor the exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. Statutory infringement is defined in Section 29(1) of ' The Trade Marks Act, 1999 ' is, as under: "29. Infringement of registered trade marks.- (1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person Judgment 16 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark." 44.The essential ingredients of Section 29(1) of ' The Trade Marks Act, 1999 ' are, as under: (a) The defendant is not a registered proprietor or permitted user of the trademark; and (b) The impugned mark must be identical or deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff; and (c) The impugned mark is used in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trademark of the plaintiff is registered; and (d) The defendant is using the trademark in the course of trade. 45.The plaintiff's registration remains valid and enforceable unless removed or rectified in accordance with law. Admittedly, no proceedings for cancellation or rectification of plaintiff's registrations have been shown to have been initiated by the defendant. Needless to say, registration of a Trade Mark is prima facie evidence of validity and, unless rectified by the competent authority, the registration remains enforceable. The plaintiff has duly proved the registration certificates as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2. 46.The plaintiff has placed on record GST registration of the defendant's concern under the name "Admission Overseas Judgment 17 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" Connect" as Ex. PW1/12. The plaintiff has further proved various emails and communications showing use of the impugned mark. 47.During course of his cross-examination, defendant has deposed as under: ........... I am also running the business of sending students abroad on study basis which is being run by me in the name of AO Connect a proprietorship concern to which I am the sole proprietor. AO Connect was previously known as Admission Overseas Connect. The e-mail ID used by erstwhile Admission Overseas Connect and AO Connect is [email protected] . It is correct that e-mail ID [email protected] is the e-mail ID of my concern AO Connect. I have to check with Ms. Minakshi Barthwal who uses the e-mail ID [email protected] . At present, I am not using the [email protected] . I am not aware whether this e-mail i.e. [email protected] was used by Admission Overseas Connect. I have joined the Admission Overseas Connect since, September-October, 2020. Admission Overseas Connect was started by Ms. Minakshi Barthwal in the beginning of year 2020. I do not remember when I have taken over Admission Overseas Connect. I cannot tell whether Ex.PW1/14 is the web page of my concerned AO Connect as no web page address is visible on this document. It is wrong to suggest that the Logo mentioned on Ex.PW1/14 belongs to my concern AO Connect. I cannot tell whether the aforesaid logo has been used by AO Connect prior to taking over of AO Connect by me. Ms. Minakshi Barthwal was running the business of AO Connect prior to the take over of this concern by me. I cannot tell whether the e- mail dated 11.05.2020 Ex.PW1/6 was sent by Ms. Minakshi Barthwal as I was not working with Admission Overseas Connect at that point Judgment 18 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" of time. On 11.05.2020 Ms. Minakshi Barthwal was handling Admission Overseas Connect. I do not remember who is the user of Mobile Nos. 8008422573, 7702588774 & 9246214426. We do not charge anything from students for sending them abroad however, the concerned universities to whom the students are sent to pay us the commission for getting the admissions done. I have not filed any record to indicate as to how many students were sent to abroad by AO Connect/Admission Overseas Connect. I cannot tell as how much amount as commission has been received by Admission Overseas Connect till today. I do not have any joint account with Ms. Minakshi Barthwal. I had certain monitory transactions with Ms. Minakshi Barthwal. Ms. Minakshi Barthwal is working with me as an honorary consultant of my concern AO Connect. The accounts books of AO Connect are maintained by Minakshi Barthwal. I cannot tell whether the mail ID mentioned on Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8 & Ex.PW1/10 were used by AO Connect. It is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid two logos have been used by my concern AO Connect since the GST registration of the AO Connect. I cannot tell prior to GST registration of AO Connect, the aforesaid two logos were used by Admission Overseas /AO Connect or not. It is wrong to suggest that Admission Overseas Connect was started by me jointly with Minakshi Barthwal. ....... 48. The defendant admitted during cross-examination that AO Connect was previously known as "Admission Overseas Connect" and that he had taken over the said concern from Ms. Minakshi Barthwal. Thus, adoption of the expression "Admission Overseas Connect" by the concern run by the defendant stands established. Judgment 19 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" 49.The defendant and the plaintiff admittedly operate in the same field of overseas education consultancy. The dominant and essential feature of the plaintiff's registered mark is the expression "Admission Overseas". The impugned expression "Admission Overseas Connect" wholly incorporates the essential feature of the plaintiff's registered mark and merely adds the suffix "Connect". Such addition does not materially distinguish the mark. 50.It is a matter of record that vide order dated 10.05.2023, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court to inspect the premises of the defendant and seize any material allegedly infringing the plaintiff's trademark. 51.Local Commissioner submitted a detailed report of the inspection proceedings on 30.06.2023. The report is part of the record. It indicates that the words "Admission Overseas Connect" were displayed on the premises beneath the trade name of defendant, namely, "AO Connect". In " Levi Strauss & Co. vs Rajesh Agarwal in RFA 127/2007", Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: 10. It is a settled proposition that the Local Commissioner need not be examined in every matter. If any party wishes to examine the Commissioner for whatsoever reason or if the Court wishes to seek any clarification in respect of the Commissioner's report, then the option to examine the Commissioner exists. In Misrilal Ramratan & Ors. Mansukhlal & Ors. v. A. S. Shaik Fathimal & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600 the Supreme Court categorically holds that the Commissioner's report cannot be rejected on the specious plea of non-examination of the Judgment 20 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" Commissioner. The relevant portion of the judgement reads as under: "It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner as a witness since it is part of the record of the case." Similar is the view taken by a Ld. Single Judge of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi Sharma & Anr. AIR 1976 DELHI 175. 52.In view of provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC and the judgment discussed above, the settled legal position that emerges is that the report of the Local Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit where it is not challenged by any party. Accordingly, in the present case the report of the Local Commissioner and the contents therein can be relied upon by the Court as evidence as the same is unchallenged. 53.The Local Commissioner's report reveals that the expression "Admission Overseas Connect" was displayed at the defendant's premises beneath the trade name of defendant "AO Connect". This establishes that the impugned mark was being used by the defendant. There is no other reason to disbelieve the Local Commissioner's report. 54.In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories , AIR 1965 SC 980, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in an action for infringement, once Judgment 21 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" the essential features of a registered mark are adopted by the defendant, the fact that there are additional distinguishing features is of little consequence. 55.Similarly, in Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia , (2004) 3 SCC 90, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once infringement is established, injunction should ordinarily follow. The plea that the words "Admission Overseas" are descriptive cannot be accepted in the present proceedings. The plaintiff's registrations continue to remain on the register and therefore carry statutory validity. So long as the registration subsists, the registered proprietor is entitled to protection under the Act. 56.The evidence led by the defendant is insufficient to establish any independent right over the impugned mark. Even if, the defendant's concern was initially managed by Ms. Minakshi Barthwal, no document has been produced showing any authorization by the plaintiff permitting use of the registered trademark in favour of "Admission Overseas Connect". 57.Moreover, during proceedings of the case, an undertaking was given by the defendant on 03.03.2023 before the Court that he would not use the impugned trade marks which is also a relevant circumstance supporting the plaintiff's case regarding prior use and reputation of the plaintiff's trademark. Judgment 22 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" 58.Though the defendant has argued that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of Ms. Minakshi Barthwal, however, the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is against the defendant who admittedly took over and continued the business under the impugned name. Therefore, the suit cannot be stated as bad for non-joinder of Ms. Minakshi Barthwal. 59.Accordingly, it is held that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.2 : Whether the defendant is passing off his services as those of the plaintiff? OPP 60.The plaintiff has been carrying on business under the name "Admission Overseas" since the year 2002. The evidence on record shows substantial use of the mark over a long period of time. 61.The law relating to passing off is well settled. In Laxmikant V. Patel Vs. Chetanbhai Shah , (2002) 3 SCC 65 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that nobody is entitled to represent his business in such a manner as would lead the public to believe that his goods or services are those of another. 62.The defendant is engaged in identical services and adopted the expression "Admission Overseas Connect". The likelihood of confusion is evident from the nature of services rendered by both parties and the substantial identity of the marks. The e-mails proved by the plaintiff Judgment 23 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" indicate that confusion had arisen among business associates regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant's concern. 63.In Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , (2001) 5 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the test is whether a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is likely to be deceived. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India defined an action of passing off and the factors thereof, as under: "31. Trade mark is essentially adopted to advertise one's product and to make it known to the purchaser. It attempts to portray the nature and, if possible, the quality of the product and over a period of time the mark may become popular. It is usually at that stage that other people are tempted to pass of their products as that of the original owner of the mark. That is why it is said that in a passing off action, the plaintiff's right is "against the conduct of the defendant which leads to or is intended or calculated to lead to deception. Passing off is said to be a species of unfair trade competition or of actionable unfair trading by which one person, through deception, attempts to obtain an economic benefit of the reputation which other has established for himself in a particular trade or business. The action is regarded as an action for deceit." (See Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. , 1990 Suppl. SCC 727). 35. Broadly stated in an action for passing off on the basis of of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors to be considered: a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks i.e. both words and label Judgment 24 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" marks. b) The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea. c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks. d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders. e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and / or using the goods. f) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods and g) Any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks. Weightage to be given to each of the aforesaid factors depends upon facts of each case and the same weightage cannot be given to each factor in every case." 64. Applying the aforesaid principles, it is apparent that the impugned mark is likely to mislead students, educational institutions and business associates into believing that the defendant's concern is associated with the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff has successfully established the tort of passing off. Accordingly, the Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction, as prayed? OPP 65.In view of the findings recorded on Issues No.1 & 2, the Judgment 25 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" plaintiff has established infringement of trademark as well as passing off. Since the defendant has adopted and used a mark deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff in relation to identical services, the plaintiff is entitled to protection of his statutory and common law rights. 66.Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark "Admission Overseas Connect" or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The Issue No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts, if so, from what period? OPP 67.The plaintiff has sought rendition of accounts of profits allegedly earned by the defendant through use of the impugned mark. Although bank account statements were produced through PW2 and PW3, the plaintiff has not established what portion of the defendant's earnings, if any, was directly attributable to the alleged infringement. 68.No books of accounts, audited statements or reliable evidence have been produced to enable this Court to undertake an exercise of rendition of accounts. In absence of adequate material, the relief of rendition of accounts cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Issue No.4 is decided against the plaintiff. Judgment 26 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs.50,00,000/- as prayed? OPP 69.The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.50,00,000/- alleging loss of goodwill and business. However, apart from making a bald assertion regarding loss, no cogent evidence has been led to establish actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. No evidence regarding loss of clients, loss of revenue, diminution of goodwill or diversion of business quantified in monetary terms has been produced. 70.The plaintiff has failed to establish the basis upon which the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been claimed. Damages cannot be awarded merely on conjectures and surmises. The plaintiff must have placed sufficient material before the Court for assessment of damages. In the absence of such evidence, the claim for damages cannot be granted. Issue No.5 is decided against the plaintiff. Relief 71.In view of the findings, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant, his proprietorship concern, agents, servants, representatives, employees, associates and all persons acting on his behalf from using the trademark "ADMISSION OVERSEAS CONNECT", "ADMISSION OVERSEAS", or any other mark, logo, trade name, domain name, e-mail IDs, social Judgment 27 of 28 CS (COMM) No. 141/2022 "Admission Overseas Vs. Ravi Naik" media pages, advertisements or business identifier that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks so as to amount to infringement and passing off in relation to overseas education consultancy, immigration consultancy, study visa services and allied services. The reliefs of rendition of accounts and damages of Rs.50,00,000/- are declined. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court on 14th July 2026. Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM MANAN MANAN Date: 2026.07.14 13:15:27 +0530 GAUTAM MANAN DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTH-WEST COMMERCIAL COURTS-03 DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI Judgment 28 of 28
Cancel
Update Case