Gurugram court restrains misleading use of Harvard name by education firm

A commercial court in Gurugram has passed an interim order to restrain an educational training firm, Big Red Education, from using the term “Harvard” in its programs, websites, or promos [President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Big Red Education & Anr.].Additional District Judge Mahavir Singh passed the interim order on a trademark infringement suit filed by the governing body of US-based Ivy League college, Harvard University, against the Gurugram-based edu-tech firm. The court opined that the firm's use of the 'Harvard' name by the firm could mislead students and the public into thinking that its programs were affiliated with or endorsed by Harvard University.The court, therefore, directed Big Red Education, its officers, agents, and other representatives (defendants) to stop using program names such as “Harvard Youth Lead the Change,” “Harvard Debate League,” and “Harvard YLC,” as well as phrases such as “Harvard Mentor” and “Become a Harvard Trained Leader" during the pendency of the trademark case. .The court further restrained the education firm from continuing any online presence under the 'Harvard' name. The defendants were restrained from using or operating websites such as "www.harvardvic.org" and "www.harvardyle.org" , or any other website containing the name “Harvard". “They are further restrained from… using or otherwise copying, issuing to public, via any online platforms or through any other medium, services under the trademark ‘HARVARD’ or any other program through… any other website containing the name ‘HARVARD’ or doing other activities which is likely to lead to confusion or deception thereby resulting in passing off the defendants’ services as those of plaintiff during the pendency of the suit," the court said. .Harvard University had sued Big Red Education for trademark infringement on allegations that the latter was running and advertising education and leadership programmes in India using the word “Harvard,” even though it had no authorization or affiliation with the university.Harvard stated that it is the registered proprietor of the “Harvard” trademark in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including in relation to educational services, and that the mark has been recognised as a well-known trademark. Harvard told the court that the education firm used the word “Harvard” in the names of its programmes, advertising material and website addresses, and also featured photos of Harvard University buildings. Harvard argued that this manner of use created a false impression that the firm’s programs were connected with, endorsed by, or conducted in collaboration with Harvard University.Harvard asserted that this misuse harmed its reputation and goodwill, and urged the court to pass an injunction order to restrain Big Red Education from continuing to use the Harvard name. .Big Red Education opposed any such grant of injunction.The firm argued that its use of the word “Harvard” was lawful and fell within the scope of Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act. The provision allows limited use of a registered trademark for descriptive purposes, provided such use is reasonably necessary and does not mislead the public. The defendants stated that references such as “Harvard Mentors” were only meant to describe the educational background or academic affiliation of certain mentors associated with their programs, and not to suggest that Harvard University itself was offering or endorsing the programs..The court, however, was not persuaded by this defence at the interim stage. The court also noted that the defendants’ use of the word “Harvard” was prominent and dominant, including in program titles and website names, and was not limited to a neutral descriptive reference within the body of promotional material.The court held that the firm's use of the Harvard name did not appear to be genuinely necessary and was likely to confuse people into thinking the programmes were linked to Harvard University.The court concluded that Harvard University had made out a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. “The plaintiff (Harvard University) has been able to show a prima facie case in its favour, balance of convenience is also in its favour and it would suffer an irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted in its favour," it said. .The court clarified that these observations are limited to the decision on interim relief and will not affect the rights of the parties when the case is decided on finally on merits..Advocates RK Aggarwal, Vinay Padam, and Vivek Nasa, represented the plaintiff, Harvard College.Advocates Karan Bajaj, Sanat Tokas, and Vinayak Gupta appeared for the defendants, Big Red Education and its representatives..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.