The Delhi High Court in India has ruled against the Ivy League school Princeton University (Princeton University) Use. . . on "Princeton" A trademark infringement lawsuit filed by an Indian educational institution for the term.

Harry Yu．Shankar (C. Hari Shankar) A single bench formed by a judge dismissed Princeton's case against the Hyderabad-based courtVagdeviA lawsuit filed by the Education association, And point out "Princeton" The use of the term in India does not represent this university institution in the United States.

The court order states: "No matter how many there are, An Indian student studying at Princeton does not equate to a plaintiffPRINCETONTrademark provides services in India. The plaintiff institution offers courses on Indian subjects, Nor does the Center of Indian Studies or Indian cultural activity reflect the plaintiff's position in1991It was used in India a few years ago 'Princeton' trademark. "

Brief of the case

Princeton University, through its trustees, is based in HyderabadVagdeviEducational association (defendant) File a lawsuit, The association runs the Princeton Institute of Education in Telangana, Princeton Institute of Engineering and Technology, Princeton Degree and College Preparatory College, Princeton College Preparatory Institute for Information Technology, Princeton College of Management Preparatory College and Princeton School of Pharmacy.

The plaintiff alleges, The defendant will "Princeton" As part of the name of the educational institution it runs, As its domain nameprincetonschoolofeducation. comAs part of the logo of its various institutions／Part of a logo, Infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark, And attempted to pass off the services provided by his agency as services provided by or related to the plaintiff.

In this context, The plaintiff asked for a permanent injunction, Defendants are prohibited from using any inclusion in the services provided by their institutions "Princeton" The sign of, Or in any other way infringe Plaintiff's registered trademark or pass off Defendant's services as Plaintiff's services.

Plaintiff's counsel pointed out, Princeton University is near1300Faculty and staff, These include well-known people with high reputations, Some are Nobel Prize winners. Albert．Einstein (Albert Einstein) Is one of them. At any time, The plaintiffs are in training5200Multiple undergraduates and2900Multiple graduate students. The plaintiffs offered several courses. The plaintiffs also offered study abroad programs for students.

The Ivy League school mentioned that it offers scholarships to Indian students and has academic links with a number of Indian institutions, Several newspaper reports were also submitted.

He claims, The defendant association tried to bring its agency to provide services "Pretend to be" Services provided by Princeton University.

Opinion of the High Court

The court held that, The materials cited in India and the United States cannot be mistaken for the same.

The court said: "Whichever way you look at it, in "Trademark law" Within the scope of, Repeated references in newspaper articles published in India to plaintiff institutions located in the United States do not constitute plaintiff's use in India 'Princeton' trademark. "

The court noted that, There is no evidence that American Ivy League schools are1991years (First use by the defendant agency "Princeton" Date of mark) Prior continuous use "Princeton" trademark.

The court said: "Defendant himself1991It has been using its logo since 2000. Plaintiff until2022The case was filed in 2000. The defendant provided educational services, And has so far used the sued trademark nearly30years. There is no public interest factor that would deprive the defendant of further use 'Princeton' Rights that are part of the name of their institution. "

The court also held that, Although both sides are on offer "Educational service" Used in the background of the logo, but "It is unrealistic to think that consumers would confuse a service provided by a defendant with a service provided by a plaintiff" .

Shankar points out: "The plaintiffs are now arguably the most important institutions of higher education in the world, No service outside the United States. The accused's establishment is located entirely within the territory of Telangana, There are no branches even outside the state. It is impossible for anyone wishing to enter the plaintiff's institution to stray into the defendant's institution. same, Nor could any student wishing to enter the defendant's institution stray into the plaintiff's, Or think there's a connection. "

The court further stated that, Princeton did not record any material, To show that it's in1991Availability or performance of services provided prior to this year in India, And the defendant was1991Start to use "Princeton" emblematic.

The court also held that, As a result of the defendant's agency1991It has been in operation since 2000, So the Ivy League should prove it, Due to the use of the defendant "Princeton" mark, They have suffered irreparable damage, To seek an interim order. (Be compiled fromwww. latestlaws. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.