Delhi HC denies interim relief to Princeton University in trademark suit

“Multiple references of newspaper articles published in India, which make reference to the plaintiff-institution located in the US cannot, viewed any which way, constitute “use” by the plaintiff of the PRINCETON mark in India, within the meaning of Trade Marks Act,” Justice Shankar added.

The institution filed a lawsuit against Vagdevi Educational Society which runs the six institutions, including Princeton School of Education, Princeton School of Engineering and Technology, among others.

Princeton University had approached the court arguing that it was founded in 1746 and has been using the mark ‘Princeton’ in India since 1911.

The Ivy League institution presented several newspaper reports while submitting that it offers fellowships to Indian students and has academic associations with several Indian institutions.

Justice Shankar observed that there is no evidence of continuous use by the American Ivy League college of the “Princeton” mark prior to the year 1991 which was the date of “first use” by the defendant institutions of the “Princeton” mark.

“The defendants have been using their mark, admittedly, since 1991. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff only in 2022. The defendants provide educational services and have been providing the said services, under the impugned marks, for close to three decades as of date. No element of public interest can be said to exist in denying, to the defendants, the further right to use PRINCETON as part of the names of their institutions,” the HC said.

Princeton also claimed that the defendant society had sought to “pass off” the services provided at its institutions as services provided by Princeton University. On this point, Justice Shankar said that though the marks used by both parties were in the context of providing “educational services”, it would be “unrealistic to believe that any consumer would confuse the services provided by the defendants with those provided by the plaintiff”.

“The plaintiff is, today, arguably the foremost higher educational institution in the world, and provides no services outside the US. The defendants’ institutions are situated entirely within the State of Telangana and do not even have any branch outside the said state. No aspirant to the portals of the plaintiff-institution is likely to mistakenly join the defendants; equally, no student, who wants to join one of the defendants’ institutions, is likely to mistakenly approach the plaintiff, believing them to be inter-related,” Justice Shankar observed.

The court further said that Princeton University had not placed on record any material indicating any statement by it about the “availability, provision or performance of the services provided by it accessible in India prior to 1991” which was the year when the defendants started using the PRINCETON mark

It further observed that since the defendants’ institutions have been functioning since 1991, it would be on the Ivy League university to establish that they have suffered an irreparable loss due to the use of the Princeton mark by the defendant for seeking an interim order, however, no arguments were made on this point.