CASE SUMMARY: TRIUMPHANT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION PVT. LTD. VS. TIMES COACHING CENTER

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION

This case is all about trademark infringement in the education and coaching industry. Triumphant Institute of Management Education Private Limited which also known as T.I.M.E. filed a case against Times Coaching Center for adopting the mark TIME and the Plaintiff believe that the defendant is intentionally benefiting from the goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks. The Court is considering whether the mark was deceptively similar or not.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The plaintiff is Triumphant Institute of Management and the defendant is Times Coaching Centre. 
2. Plaintiff Company, incorporated under the laws of India in 1992, is a renowned owner of a comprehensive chain of coaching Institutes and training center operating across India, offering premium education and training for various National and State-level Examinations including CAT, GATE, CLAT, IIT-JEE, GMAT, etc., as also for Bank and SSC Competitive Examinations as one-stop shop for aspiring candidates to get into leading Institutes. The Institutes are run under the trademark and style T.I.M.E., which is an acronym derived from the name of the Company, i.e., TRIUMPHANT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION.
3. Plaintiff’s trademarks are stated to be registered as word and device marks in classes 16, 38 and 41 and the registrations are valid and subsisting. 
4. Plaintiff has filed this suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and all others acting on its behalf from providing any services, advertising and/or promoting and/or using the trademark ‘TIMES COACHING CENTRE’, domain name www.timescoaching.in, mobile application ‘Times Coaching’ and YouTube channels as referred to in the CS(COMM) plaint and/or any other trademark/trade name/label/device/domain name deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s trademarks ‘T.I.M.E.- TRIUMPHANT INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION’ and ‘T.I.M.E. TUTIONS’, including the device marks, as well as ‘time4education’ and domain name www.time4education.com. 
5. It was argued that comparison of the two rival trademarks/logos would show that Defendant has adopted and copied the prominent and essential feature of Plaintiff’s trademark, i.e., ‘T.I.M.E.’, which is distinctive of Plaintiff’s services in the field of coaching centers. The domain name of the Defendant www.timescoaching.in is also a slavish copy of Plaintiff’s domain name www.time4education.com, with a minor difference. 
6. It was contended by the defendant that Plaintiff does not have registrations in the trademarks TIME or TIMES and over the years, Plaintiff has not even endeavored to apply for the same. Section 17(2) (a) (ii) of the Trademarks Act,1999 further provides that when a trademark contains any part which is not separately registered as the trademark, the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trademark so registered.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the defendant’s use of “Times coaching Center” infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
2. Whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to passing off.
3. Whether the interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark should continue.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF

• The plaintiff argued that it had already built substantial goodwill in the education sector through use of the T.I.M.E. as trademark continuously.
• The defendant had intentionally picked the word TIMES for benefiting from the plaintiff’s reputation.
• If both the parties offered identical trademarks for their coaching services the consumers were likely to believe that the institute was connected to each other.
• They claimed that such conduct amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

ARGUMANTS OF THE DEFENDANT

• The defendant contended the plaintiff could not monopolize the word TIME.
• Under section 17 of the Trademarks Act it was provided that the exclusive rights extended only to the mark taken as a whole.
• In this case the expressions “T.I.M.E.” and “Times” were sufficiently different in appearance, structure and pronunciation.
• Even though the defendant also relied on its subsequent adoption of “Future Times Coaching Center” trademark.

JUDGEMENT

• Therefore, the attempt to dissect the word T.I.M.E. from the whole trademark and compare it with the impugned trademark alleging deceptive similarity, is impermissible in law. the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted vide order dated 02.02.2021 is hereby confirmed, with the modification that the injunction shall apply to the newly adopted trademarks ‘FUTURE TIMES COACHING CENTRE’. It is, however, made clear that Defendant is at liberty to run its Institute under any other trademark including FUTURE COACHING CENTRE without using the word ‘TIMES’. 
• The interim injunction granted by this Court restrained the Defendant from using the trademarks ‘TIMES COACHING CENTRE’ as well as the domain names, comprising the word ‘TIMES COACHING’, including any other trademark, label, etc. deceptively similar and infringing the Plaintiff’s trademarks. The reply filed by the Defendant and the additional affidavit reflect that Defendant in its wisdom understood the injunction order to mean that it was restrained from using the trademarks ‘TIMES COACHING CENTRE’, domain name ‘www.timescoaching.in’, mobile application ‘Times Coaching’ and YouTube channels namely, ‘Times Coaching’, ‘Times Defense’ and ‘Times Teaching’. With this understanding, Defendant changed the trademark to ‘FUTURE TIMES COACHING CENTRE’ in the belief that this would not be a violation of the injunction order. 
• Accordingly, the applications are dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- payable by the Defendant to Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association, within two weeks from today.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED

The Court relied upon the following principles:

1. Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Rights of a registered proprietor.
2. Section 29 – Trademark infringement.
3. Passing off – Protection of business goodwill against misrepresentation.
4. Likelihood of confusion – Assessed from the viewpoint of an average consumer.
5. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury – Key tests for granting interim injunctions.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

1. The judgment reinforces more on that the registered trademarks in the education sector deserves robust legal protection.
2. The court correctly emphasized the possibility of confusion among peoples rather than relying upon comparison of the words T.I.M.E. and times.
3. This judgment gives limited weight to the defendant’s argument that time is a common English word and it viewed as narrowing the scope of fair use of a descriptive term.

OBITER DICTA

1. To avoid consumer confusion and trademark disputes, educational institutions must adopt distinctive brand names.
2. Especially in the education sector where reputation influences student’s choices, Goodwill is a valuable commercial asset and it deserves protection.
3. Is the dominant part of the trademark being similar then simply adding a prefix or suffix to the word may not remove the likelihood of confusion.
4. Every business should avoid adopting a trademark similar to the existing well-known trademark.
5.  Trademark law prevents unfair competition and misleading representations in marketplace to protect both businesses and consumers.

CONCLUSION

On the trademark protection in the education sector the Triumphant Institute of Management Education Private Limited vs. Times Coaching Center is an important Delhi High Court decision. In this case the court protected the plaintiff’s goodwill and restrained the defendant from using the mark “Times”, holding that such use was likely to deceive consumers and constituted a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off. This judgment underscores the principle that Businesses can’t adopt similar trademarks to benefit from another trader’s established reputation deceptively.