Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP Vs Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.:26.05.2026:FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2024: 2026:DHC:4757-DB: Hon'ble Justices Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora,
The Division Bench refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s order denying interim injunction in a trademark passing off dispute between two prominent UPSC coaching institutes. The appellant, owner of the marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAM & RAO”, alleged that the respondent’s mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” was deceptively similar and intended to ride upon its goodwill.
The Court held that the rival composite marks, when viewed as a whole, were visually and phonetically distinct and that UPSC aspirants constituted a discerning class of consumers unlikely to be confused. The Bench also observed that the appellant failed to establish independent goodwill in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM” and had not produced sufficient evidence of confusion, misrepresentation, or damage.
The Court further noted prolonged delay, concurrent use since at least 2007, and the appellant’s failure to diligently prosecute the suit by leading evidence. Relying upon precedents including Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries, and Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, the Court upheld the refusal of interim injunction and dismissed the appeal while directing expeditious completion of trial proceedings.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#DelhiHighCourt, #TrademarkLaw, #TrademarkDispute, #PassingOff, #VajiramAndRavi, #VajiraoAndReddy, #IPLaw, #IntellectualProperty, #TrademarkInfringement, #UPSCCoaching, #CommercialCourtsAct, #InterimInjunction, #BrandProtection, #IndianTrademarkLaw, #LegalNewsIndia, #IPLitigation, #CivilProcedureCode, #DelhiHCJudgment, #TrademarkPassingOff, #IPRUpdates, #LegalUpdate, #CoachingInstituteDispute, #TrademarkRights, #JusticeManmeetPritamSinghArora, #JusticeVKameswarRao, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
====
Suggested Google SEO Titles
1. Delhi High Court Refuses Injunction in Vajiram vs Vajirao Trademark Passing Off Dispute
2. VAJIRAM & RAVI vs VAJIRAO & REDDY: Delhi High Court on Trademark Similarity and Passing Off
3. Delhi HC Holds “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY” Not Deceptively Similar
4. Trademark Passing Off in Coaching Industry: Delhi HC Dismisses Vajiram Appeal
5. Delhi High Court on Composite Marks and Passing Off in UPSC Coaching Trademark Dispute
6. Delay and Acquiescence in Trademark Cases: Delhi HC Verdict in Vajiram Case
7. Delhi HC Clarifies Law on Interim Injunction in Trademark Passing Off Matters
8. VAJIRAO & REDDY Allowed to Continue Use of Mark: Delhi HC Trademark Ruling
9. Delhi High Court Upholds Refusal of Interim Injunction in Coaching Institute Trademark Dispute
10. Landmark Delhi HC Judgment on Trademark Reputation, Goodwill and Passing Off in Education Sector
The Test of Passing off in relation to UPSC Coaching Institute
Introduction:
The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP v. M/s Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd. is an important decision dealing with trademark passing off, deceptive similarity, delay in seeking injunction, and the principles governing appellate interference in interim injunction matters. The dispute arose between two well-known coaching institutes engaged in preparation of candidates for the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC. The appellant, operating under the marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAM & RAO”, alleged that the respondent’s use of the mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” amounted to passing off and was deceptively similar to its trademark.
The Court examined whether the use of the word “VAJIRAO” by the respondent created confusion among students and whether the appellant had established sufficient goodwill and reputation in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”. The Court also analysed the effect of delay, acquiescence, concurrent use, and the conduct of parties while deciding whether an interim injunction should be granted.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The appellant institute was originally established by Professor P. Velayutham under the mark “VAJIRAM & RAO”. Later, in 1976, the management was taken over by Mr. P.S. Ravindram and the institute started functioning under the name “VAJIRAM & RAVI”. The appellant obtained registrations for the marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI”, “VAJIRAM & RAO”, and also the standalone word mark “VAJIRAM”.
The respondent institute was also engaged in the business of coaching students for civil services examinations and had been using the mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” since at least 2007. The respondent also possessed registration of its device mark bearing Trademark No. 1859489 with user claim from 2007.
The dispute arose when the appellant alleged that the respondent’s use of the expression “VAJIRAO” was deceptively similar to “VAJIRAM” and was intended to create confusion among students. According to the appellant, “VAJIRAO” was an abbreviation associated with its earlier mark “VAJIRAM & RAO”, particularly among students during the 1980s and 1990s.
The appellant instituted a commercial suit being CS(COMM) 43/2019 before the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction and interim injunction against the respondent for passing off and unfair competition. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 14 September 2023, refused to grant interim injunction. Aggrieved by the refusal, the appellant preferred the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
Dispute Before the Court:
The principal controversy before the Court was whether the respondent’s mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE” and its use of the standalone expression “VAJIRAO” were deceptively similar to the appellant’s marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI”, “VAJIRAM”, and “VAJIRAM & RAO”.
The appellant argued that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the mark “VAJIRAO” to exploit the goodwill and reputation associated with “VAJIRAM”. It was contended that both parties operated in the same field of UPSC coaching and targeted the same category of students, thereby increasing the possibility of confusion. The appellant also argued that delay in filing the suit should not defeat injunction because dishonest adoption disentitles the defendant from equitable relief.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that both marks were composite marks and had to be examined as a whole. According to the respondent, “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE” were visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct. The respondent further argued that UPSC aspirants are educated and discerning consumers who can clearly distinguish between coaching institutes. The respondent also relied upon long and continuous use of its mark since 2007 and argued that the appellant had acquiesced in such use.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:
The Division Bench carefully analysed the law relating to passing off. The Court reiterated that in an action for passing off, the plaintiff must establish goodwill attached to the mark, misrepresentation by the defendant, likelihood of confusion among consumers, and resulting damage.
The Court agreed with the findings of the Single Judge that the rival composite marks had to be compared as a whole. Upon comparing “VAJIRAM & RAVI” with “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE”, the Court found substantial dissimilarities. The additional words “RAVI” and “REDDY”, the logos, and the inclusion of the word “INSTITUTE” created sufficient distinction between the marks.
The Court observed that the appellant itself had not seriously challenged the finding that the composite marks were dissimilar. The real challenge was confined to the respondent’s use of the standalone expression “VAJIRAO”.
The Court then examined whether the appellant had established goodwill and reputation in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”. It found that the appellant generally used “VAJIRAM” together with “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and had not produced convincing evidence showing independent goodwill attached exclusively to the word “VAJIRAM”. The Court noted absence of material such as sales figures, advertising expenditure, and promotional data to establish distinctiveness of the standalone mark.
For this proposition, the Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1163, where it was held that sales figures and advertisement expenditure are relevant factors in proving goodwill and reputation in a passing off action.
The Court further held that the appellant had failed to establish misrepresentation or confusion among students. The Court placed reliance upon interviews of successful UPSC candidates who had openly acknowledged attending both institutes and treated them as distinct coaching centres. These interviews demonstrated that the target audience was capable of differentiating between the two institutions.
Another important aspect considered by the Court was delay and acquiescence. The respondent had shown that both parties were advertising simultaneously in the same magazines since at least 2009. Therefore, the Court found the appellant’s claim that it discovered the respondent only in 2018 to be unconvincing.
The Court discussed the decision in Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan and Another, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27, but distinguished it on facts because that case involved only a solitary advertisement whereas the present matter involved continuous concurrent advertisements over several years.
The appellant relied heavily on Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 90, where the Supreme Court held that delay alone cannot defeat injunction in cases of dishonest adoption. However, the Division Bench held that the said judgment was inapplicable because dishonest adoption had not been prima facie established in the present case.
The Court also relied upon Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Limited and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court held that unexplained delay and prolonged silence by a plaintiff can prejudice the defendant who has continuously used the mark during that period. Applying this principle, the Court held that the respondent had built its own goodwill since 2007 and the appellant’s silence for more than a decade tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the respondent.
The Court further examined the principles governing appellate interference in interim injunction matters. Reliance was placed upon the celebrated judgment in Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein the Supreme Court held that appellate courts should not interfere with discretionary orders unless the lower court acted arbitrarily, perversely, or ignored settled legal principles.
The Court also referred to Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed limited appellate interference in interim injunction matters. Further reliance was placed upon Sanjay Gupta and Vinay Gupta v. Vineet Jain, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1862.
An important observation made by the Court concerned the conduct of the appellant during trial. The Court noted that although issues had been framed on 31 January 2020 and witness affidavits had been filed, the appellant had failed to commence recording of evidence even by 2026. The Court remarked that litigants often appear interested only in interim injunctions rather than final adjudication. The Court considered this conduct indicative of lack of bona fides.
Final Decision of the Court:
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge refusing interim injunction. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish deceptive similarity, goodwill in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”, likelihood of confusion, dishonest adoption by the respondent, or damage resulting from use of the impugned mark.
The Court directed the appellant to commence recording of evidence in July 2026 and complete evidence within three months. The respondent was also directed to conclude its evidence within three months thereafter. The Court further directed that failure by the appellant to proceed with evidence could result in dismissal of the suit under Order XVII Rules 2 and 3 read with Order IX CPC for non-prosecution.
Point of Law Settled in the Case:
The judgment reiterates that in passing off actions involving composite trademarks, marks must be compared as a whole and not dissected into isolated parts. Mere phonetic resemblance of one component may not be sufficient to establish deceptive similarity.
The decision further clarifies that a plaintiff claiming goodwill in a standalone portion of a composite mark must produce concrete evidence such as sales figures, promotional expenditure, and market recognition to establish distinctiveness.
The Court also reaffirmed that delay, acquiescence, and long concurrent use are relevant considerations while deciding interim injunction applications, particularly where dishonest adoption is not prima facie established.
The judgment additionally strengthens the principle that appellate courts should exercise restraint while interfering with discretionary orders concerning interim injunctions in intellectual property matters.
Case Title: Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP Vs Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Order: 26 May 2026
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4757-DB
Court: Delhi High Court
Hon’ble Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Headnote
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal seeking interim injunction in a trademark passing off dispute between UPSC coaching institutes “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY”. The Court held that the rival composite marks were not deceptively similar when viewed as a whole and that the appellant failed to establish independent goodwill in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”. The Court further held that educated UPSC aspirants were discerning consumers unlikely to be confused, and prolonged delay and acquiescence by the appellant disentitled it from interim relief. The judgment reiterates settled principles governing passing off, composite trademarks, goodwill, delay, and limited appellate interference in interim injunction matters.
Trademark Law, Passing Off, Delhi High Court, Vajiram and Ravi, Vajirao and Reddy, Trademark Dispute, Composite Marks, UPSC Coaching Institutes, Intellectual Property Law, Interim Injunction, Deceptive Similarity, Trademark Infringement, Goodwill and Reputation, Acquiescence in Trademark Law, Delay in Trademark Suit, Commercial Courts Act, Wander Ltd Case, Toyota Prius Case, Midas Hygiene Case, IP Litigation India, Civil Services Coaching Trademark Dispute, Delhi HC Trademark Judgment, Brand Protection Law, Trademark Passing Off India, IP Rights India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
===
