Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Vs. Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : CS(COMM) 271/2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/03/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India Vs. Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India (Delhi High Court)

The plaintiff is The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The defendant is The Institute of Cost Accountants of India. The plaintiff abbreviates its moniker to the acronym ICAI, as does the defendant. Chagrined at this, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant, objecting to the defendant‘s use of the ICAI acronym. The plaint, therefore, seeks an injunction against the defendant from using the said ICAI acronym in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff has filed, with the plaint, I .A. 7230/2021 under Order XXX IX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking interlocutory injunctive reliefs. This judgment decides the said application.

The word mark ICAI, being an abbreviation of ―Institute of Chartered Accountants of India‖ stands registered in favour of the plaintiff, by the Registrar of Trade Marks, with effect from 25th March 2011 in Class 41 of the Nice Classification, which pertains to ―Education and Providing of Training‖. The defendant is engaged in the very same activity, the only difference being that the plaintiff classically caters to Chartered Accountants, whereas the defendant is the Institute of Cost Accountants.

The plaintiff and the defendant are using identical acronyms, i.e., ICAI. The case, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act and, therefore, also brings into operation Section 29(3). Section 29(3), read with Section 29(2)(c) clearly ordains that where the trademarks of the plaintiff and the defendant are the same, and the goods or services covered by the marks are also identical, the Court shall presume the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

The present case, therefore, justifies a prima facie finding of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, by the use, by the defendant, of the impugned ICAI mark, by operation of Section 29(3) read with Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031