M/S. Getmyuni Education Services Private Limited Vs Mangalayatan University — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S. Getmyuni Education Services Private Limited Vs Mangalayatan University — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned interim-injunction orders dated 28.03.2023 (ADJ-01, Dwarka Courts, in CS DJ ADJ Nos. 1009/2021 and 1004/2021) set aside in both FAO 126/2023 and FAO 129/2023; both appeals disposed of in the above terms along with the pending applications (CM APPL. 27117/2023 and CM APPL. 27249/2023).

¶Judgment para 10

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent universities (Mangalayatan University and Usha Martin University) made out a prima facie case justifying the interim injunction restraining the appellant EdTech platform (GetMyUni) from using/displaying their names, information and publicly sourced rankings on www.getmyuni.com — i.e., whether that display disparaged their professional reputation or appropriated their indicia — such that the impugned Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC orders should stand.

¶Judgment para 1

Court's answer

The Trial Court erred: there was no evidence that the appellant tinkered with the NIRF rankings, added its own editorial comments to the rankings, or commented on the quality of the services provided by the ranked institutions.

¶Judgment para 6

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's argument that the rankings per se, as shown on the website, were disparaging of its professional reputation was unconvincing, since the website's rankings tracked rankings already available publicly.

¶Judgment para 6

Key takeaways

The rankings displayed on the appellant's website were referenced to rankings available in the public domain and were open-sourced (including NIRF-based, 'The Week'/'India Today' and zone-wise 'featured ranking' listings).ratio¶Judgment para 6
The respondent had neither challenged the rankings made by the ranking agencies nor exercised its right to be forgotten by requesting Google to efface its existence from Google search results.ratio¶Judgment para 7
Though aggrieved by the hyperlink linking the appellant's website to the respondent's website, there was no allegation of appropriation of the respondents' intellectual property by the appellant, nor any attempt to claim association with the respondents' marks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri; reserved 10.02.2026, pronounced 17.02.2026) — common judgment disposing of FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 filed by M/s GetMyUni Education Services Pvt. Ltd., an EdTech search/ranking platform (www.getmyuni.com), against orders dated 28.03.2023 of the ADJ-01, Dwarka Courts (South West District), which had allowed the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC of Mangalayatan University (CS DJ ADJ No. 1009/2021) and Usha Martin University (CS DJ ADJ No. 1004/2021), restraining the appellant from using the universities' names, information and details on its website and directing deletion during suit pendency. The Court found: (i) no evidence that the appellant tinkered with NIRF rankings, added its own editorial comments, or commented on the quality of services of ranked institutions; (ii) the displayed rankings (NIRF-based, 'The Week'/'India Today', zone-wise 'featured ranking', score of 4.1 out of 5) referenced rankings openly available in the public domain and open-sourced, making the disparagement claim unconvincing; (iii) the respondents had neither challenged the ranking agencies nor sought de-indexing from Google (right to be forgotten unexercised); and (iv) the grievance over hyperlinks involved no alleged appropriation of intellectual property or claim of association with the respondents' marks. The respondents therefore made out no prima facie case, and the appellant was held entitled to use publicly available information about them so long as it is not disparagingly presented. Impugned orders set aside; appeals disposed of with pending applications. Context: the suits followed inconclusive lead-generation discussions (go-ahead email dated 23.02.2020); suits were at the plaintiffs' evidence stage; an earlier stay of 22.05.2023 was superseded by this final disposal; damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- figured only as a prayer clause.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 10.02.2026 Pronounced on : 17.02.2026 Uploaded on : 17.02.2026

+ FAO 126/2023 and CM APPL. 27117/2023

M/S. GETMYUNI EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Udian Sharma, Mr. Jaitegan Singh Khurana, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Mr. Manav Mitra, Ms. Subhika Joshi, Mr. Sahil Saraswat, and Ms. Harsha Sadhwani, Advocates.

versus

MANGALAYATAN UNIVERSITY .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Avneet Singh Sikka, Advocate.

+ FAO 129/2023 and CM APPL. 27249/2023

M/S. GETMYUNI EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Udian Sharma, Mr. Jaitegan Singh Khurana, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Mr. Manav Mitra, Ms. Subhika Joshi, Mr. Sahil Saraswat, and Ms. Harsha Sadhwani, Advocates.

versus

USHA MARTIN UNIVERSITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Avneet Singh Sikka, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 1 of 5

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.02.2026 18:39:35

JUDGMENT

The present appeals raise a common issue, and common submissions have been addressed by the learned counsels in both the appeals; accordingly, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of vide this common judgment.

The present appeals have been directed against the orders dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned ADJ-01, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi , in CS DJ ADJ Nos. 1009/2021 and 1004/2021, whereby the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondents/plaintiffs came to be allowed and the appellant/defendant was restrained from using the name, information, and details of the respondent universities on its website ( www.getmyuni.com ). The appellant was further directed to delete the names, information, and details of the respondents from its website during the pendency of the suit. On appeals being filed, vide order dated 22.05.2023, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned orders. It is informed that the matters are at the stage of plaintiffs‟ evidence. 3. Mr. Udian Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, contends that the appellant is an education-technology (“EdTech”) based start-up and acts as an online ready-to-go mall for students wishing to know information about all the universities and make a decision based on their requirements. The appellant is further stated to be acting in public interest and in a bona fide manner, without any misrepresentation/association with the universities mentioned on its website. It is further contended that the appellant, on its website, displayed extracts from publicly available data, which come under the exception clauses of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is claimed that it‟s

Signature Not Verified

FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 2 of 5

Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.02.2026 18:39:35

common practice for online search platforms to state details of their respective subject matter for their target audience, in order to provide onestop access to everything related to the query under one umbrella. The appellant has published on its website details of various universities/top colleges offering B.Tech courses in India for the year 2023. The appellant has followed ranking parameters and weightage used by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) to rank the colleges. It is submitted that besides NIRF ranking, the appellant has also published lists of colleges as per the rankings done by „The Week‟, „India Today‟ magazines etc. Further, a list has also been provided in terms of zone-wise colleges in India as well as the fees charged by them, as available on their website. Learned counsel contends that the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order as the respondents had preferred the suit being disgruntled by the nonexecution of the MoU between the parties. Further, the impugned orders have caused irreparable harm to the appellant as well as deprived numerous students of valuable information about the universities displayed by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has primarily contended that the appellant‟s search platform, i.e., its website, does not lead to the same ranking for the respondent universities as may be available on the Google Search Engine. It is stated that while on Google, the links to the websites of the respondents appear at the second page. The appellant‟s website, however, doesn‟t yield the same result. It is stated that the aforesaid consequence is disparaging the respondents‟ reputation. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to various web pages to submit that the names of the universities are not appearing exactly in terms of the rankings

Signature Not Verified

FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 3 of 5

Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.02.2026 18:39:35

given by NIRF.

A perusal of the record would show that the appellant has placed on record emails which show that there were discussions between the parties wherein proposals for lead generation for the respondent universities were exchanged. The respondents, through an email dated 23.02.2020, also showed interest in the same and gave the go-ahead to the appellant to start the campaign. Apparently, the talks could not fructify, and the respondents filed the underlying suits for injunction with the following prayers:-

“ 01. Pass a decree of Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the defendant thereby restraining it and/or its servants, agents and other associates from using the name, information, details about the plaintiff university on the website www.getmyuni.com.

02. Direct the defendant to delete the name, information and details related to the plaintiff university on its website www.getmyuni.com.

03. Direct the defendant to pay damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- to plaintiff. ”

Along with the suits, the respondents had filed documents relating to the universities, like the gazette notification, authority letter, master data, accolades received, and the communications exchanged between the parties. The documents also include the search results displayed on the search engine www.google.co.in as well as on the appellant‟s website www.getmyuni.com . The Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence to show that the appellant has tinkered with the NIRF rankings, added its own editorial comments on the rankings, or commented on the quality of the services provided by the ranked institutions. As noted above, various colleges are shown as per the NIRF rankings as well as per the rankings by other platforms like „The Week‟ and „India Today‟. Further, a zone-wise ranking is there, which

Signature Not Verified

FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 4 of 5

Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.02.2026 18:39:35

includes a „featured ranking‟. The aforesaid list had shown the respondent universities as having a score of 4.1 out of 5. It is an unconvincing argument made by the respondent that the rankings per se, shown on the website, are disparaging to its professional reputation when the rankings displayed on the website are referenced to the rankings available in the public domain and are open-sourced.

The respondent has neither challenged the rankings made by the ranking agencies, nor has it exercised its right to be forgotten by making a request to Google to efface its existence from the Google search results.

The respondent is aggrieved by the hyperlink provided on the appellant‟s website that links the appellant‟s website to the respondent‟s website. However, there is no allegation of appropriation of the intellectual property of the respondents by the appellant or any attempt to claim association with the respondents‟ marks.

The respondents are unable to make out a prima facie case in their favour. The appellant has a right to use publicly available information about the respondents, as long as the same is not disparagingly presented by the appellant, as explained above. Hence, the impugned orders in both the appeals are set aside.

Both the present appeals are disposed of in the above terms along with the pending applications.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 17, 2026 ga

Signature Not Verified

FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 5 of 5

Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI Signing Date:17.02.2026 18:39:35