A commercial court in Gurugram has issued an interim relief for Harvard University in a trademark infringement case against a local education firm that used the term ‘Harvard’ for its programs, websites and promos.
The US-based Ivy League college had filed the lawsuit against Gurugram-based edu-tech firm Big Red Education, Bar and Bench reported.
‘Using Harvard’s name is misleading’
The court remarked that using the Ivy League college’s name could be deemed misleading and trick students and the public into thinking that its programs were affiliated with or endorsed by Harvard University.
The court has directed Big Red Education to immediately drop 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.
‘No online presence using Harvard’s name’
The court has also restricted 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”.
“[Such] activities [would] 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.
What has Harvard said?
Harvard University in its lawsuit 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 alleged that the Big Red Education had also featured photos of Harvard University buildings online.
Big Red Education on its part has claimed that its usage of the ‘Harvard’ term is lawful and fell within the scope of Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act. The provision permits limited use of a registered trademark for descriptive purposes, provided such use is reasonably necessary and does not mislead the public.
The defendants said that terms like “Harvard Mentors” were only meant to describe the academic background of some mentors in their programs, not to imply that Harvard University was offering or endorsing the programs.
The court decided that Harvard University had shown enough evidence to justify relief.