Alleging that coaching centres were “dishonestly”using its name and violating its trademark, missile manufacturer BrahMos Aerospace Private Ltd (BAPL) has filed a suit for injunction and damages against FIITJEE and USA Univ Quest.
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan Singh this week issued an interim injunction restraining the two centres from calling one of their aptitude test BRAHMOS.
The test is meant for a course designed for Indian students to get admission in US colleges.
In its plea the missile manufacturer said BrahMos was a derived word and a well-known trademark. It alleged that the coaching centres were using the term to insinuate that they were “affiliated” to BAPL.
The company also alleged that they were not only well-known manufacturers of supersonic missiles but also played a “significant role” in the aerospace industry in terms of scientific research, training and knowledge dissemination. The BAPL also claimed that through its sister concern, Brahmand, it was active in the business of providing technical and managerial know-how, consultancy services and personnel training.
The court, in its order, also took note of the plea that the use of the word BrahMos by FIITJEE was causing confusion in the minds of people, as several persons got the impression that the exam was related to the aerospace company.
“Some of the students belonging to Delhi rang up the plaintiff’s office several times and have also sent emails to enquire whether taking the BRAHMOS aptitude test entitles them to job(s)/internships in the plaintiff-company,” the BAPL plea said.
“If the interim order is not passed, the exclusive right of the plaintiff to take benefit of goodwill, name and reputation would be breached,” noted the court in its order.
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants, their servants, agents and all other persons acting on their behalf, are restrained from using the trademark BRAHMOS in relation to educational activities or as part of a domain name and in any manner whatsoever in order to create confusion and deception and infringing the trademark of the plaintiff,” the court held. It will now hear pleas with regard to payment of damages and permanent injunction against the coaching centres.