Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust Vs Dr. Babaseheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Prathishtan Sanchalit Shri Ramachandra Institute of Medical Scien — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust Vs Dr. Babaseheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Prathishtan Sanchalit Shri Ramachandra Institute of Medical Scien — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

O.A.No.79 of 2025 (infringement) allowed: respondent/defendant restrained from infringing the applicant/plaintiff's registered trade mark by using the mark 'Shri Ramchandra' as part of the name of its medical college or institution; the order comes into operation 15 days from receipt of a copy to allow lead time to apprise the authorities; the defendant may operate the college as Dr.Babaseheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan (BAVP), R K Damani Medical College or any other name not deceptively similar to 'Sri Ramachandra'. O.A.No.78 of 2025 (passing off) dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is the prior user of the relevant trade marks. +4 more

Court's answer

The plaintiff's word mark 'Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute' (Trade Mark No.2170665) was registered with effect from 05.07.2011 for educational services (class 41), research in medicine and health care (class 42) and medical services (class 44), with asserted use since 16.07.1988; several device marks containing 'Sri Ramachandra' are also registered.

Ratio / Principle

The evidence on record clearly indicates that the plaintiff is the prior user of the relevant marks and has used them for more than three decades, whereas the defendant's actual use is only for a few months.

Key takeaways

The name-of-deity objection does not disentitle the plaintiff: even if the marks were not inherently distinctive, there is prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness in relation to medical education and health care services, the plaintiff having used the marks since 1988 without any opposition or rectification application by the defendant.ratio¶66
The Supreme Court's decision in Lal Babu (an appeal against an IPAB order reversing registration) and the interlocutory order in Freudenberg do not advance the defendant's cause on the deity-name objection.ratio¶62
The onus of establishing that the element 'Sri Ramachandra' is publici juris lies on the defendant, and the evidence on record is at this juncture insufficient to draw that conclusion.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim relief — Trade mark infringement and passing off — Plaintiff trust (SRIHER, established 1985) using 'SRI RAMACHANDRA' in medical education and health care since 1988, with multiple registrations including the word mark 'Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute' (registered 05.07.2011; classes 41, 42, 44) — Defendant running a medical college as 'Shri Ramchandra Institute of Medical Sciences' pursuant to a lease deed dated 20.06.2018; college under construction, about 50 students admitted under first letter of permission dated 10.08.2024 — Held: plaintiff is prior user with over three decades' use against the defendant's few months; the objection that the mark is the name of a deity / publici juris does not disentitle the plaintiff at this stage (prima facie acquired distinctiveness; onus on defendant; Lal Babu and Freudenberg do not assist the defendant); plaintiff's registered word mark and the impugned mark are deceptively similar for identical services and the likelihood of confusion, including by association, is high; balance of convenience favours the plaintiff as the position would otherwise become irreversible — O.A.No.79 of 2025 (infringement) allowed: use of 'Shri Ramchandra' in the defendant's institution name restrained, effective 15 days from receipt of the order; defendant free to operate as BAVP / R K Damani Medical College or any non-deceptively-similar name — O.A.No.78 of 2025 (passing off) dismissed: no prima facie misrepresentation or intention to pass off.

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the plaintiff is the prior user of the relevant trade marks.¶9
The court held
The plaintiff's word mark 'Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute' (Trade Mark No.2170665) was registered with effect from 05.07.2011 for educational services (class 41), research in medicine and health care (class 42) and medical services (class 44), with asserted use since 16.07.1988; several device marks containing 'Sri Ramachandra' are also registered.ratio¶52
2.
Whether the plaintiff is disentitled to relief on account of the mark being the name of a deity.¶11
The court held
The name-of-deity objection does not disentitle the plaintiff: even if the marks were not inherently distinctive, there is prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness in relation to medical education and health care services, the plaintiff having used the marks since 1988 without any opposition or rectification application by the defendant.ratio¶66
3.
Whether the plaintiff's rights are limited because its registrations are composite/device marks, and whether the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered word mark.¶12
The court held
Although the proprietor of a composite mark is entitled to exclusive use only of the whole mark (Section 17, Trade Marks Act, 1999), the plaintiff has also registered the word mark 'Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute'; comparing that word mark as a whole with the impugned mark 'Shri Ramchandra Institute of Medical Sciences', there is little doubt of deceptive similarity given the identical services.ratio¶71
4.
Whether interim relief against infringement should be granted, having regard to the balance of convenience and the risk of the position becoming irreversible.¶13
The court held
Balance of convenience favours the plaintiff: the defendant's medical college is at a nascent stage, the hospital functions as Dr.Hedgewar Hospital and would be unaffected, and unless restrained now the position is likely to become irreversible; therefore the plaintiff is entitled to interim relief in the application for infringement.ratio¶79
5.
Whether interim relief should be granted in respect of passing off.medium confidence¶14
The court held
The documents indicate prima facie that the defendant proceeded bona fide and that there is no misrepresentation or intention to pass off its services as those of the plaintiff; although intention to deceive is not a condition precedent for passing off, relief in respect of passing off is refused at the interlocutory stage.ratio¶80