w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Umeed v/s Umeed Health Care Society


Company & Directors' Information:- M R HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232UR2006PTC031319

Company & Directors' Information:- HEALTH CARE (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231TN1988PLC016493

Company & Directors' Information:- J D HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15497WB2004PTC097974

Company & Directors' Information:- T. C. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899UP1985PTC037371

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K M HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100AP2007PTC056256

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110UR1991PTC013184

Company & Directors' Information:- A R K HEALTH CARE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24299CH1997PTC020705

Company & Directors' Information:- R S K HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85100DL1992PTC050311

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. K. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC195733

Company & Directors' Information:- N E HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85120AS2003PTC007118

Company & Directors' Information:- K R HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TZ2000PTC009327

Company & Directors' Information:- S S HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC030080

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232WB2003PTC097319

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33112DL2002PTC114051

Company & Directors' Information:- K & K HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059782

Company & Directors' Information:- N R P HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85300BR2021PTC052209

Company & Directors' Information:- A M C HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2008PTC066650

Company & Directors' Information:- O. L. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85300WB2017PTC220471

Company & Directors' Information:- S V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2006PTC145004

Company & Directors' Information:- N & N HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110OR2021PTC036397

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51397HR2008PTC037595

Company & Directors' Information:- B M R HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2009PTC192000

Company & Directors' Information:- T D HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85195WB2009PTC135107

Company & Directors' Information:- D P HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231DL2003PTC120730

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85195MH2001PTC130460

Company & Directors' Information:- N V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2016PTC280079

Company & Directors' Information:- R P M HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U24233UP2007PTC034056

Company & Directors' Information:- H V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24239DL2003PTC121596

Company & Directors' Information:- R M HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC050925

Company & Directors' Information:- S & G HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51397MP2008PTC020393

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND G HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85199KL2003PTC016352

Company & Directors' Information:- P U R V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100UP2020PTC138218

Company & Directors' Information:- V A HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85195DL2006PTC153744

    CS(OS) No. 2736 of 2011, I.A. Nos. 17528 of 2011 & 19813 of 2011

    Decided On, 18 July 2014

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

    For The Plaintiff: Amit Goel, Advocate. For the Defendant: Lovkesh Sawhney, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The plaintiff in the above said matter filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from passing off, dilution, etc. of the plaintiff’s mark 'UMEED'.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a registered Trust and is inter-alia engaged in charitable activities through 'UMEED' – the NGO, which is stated to be one of the largest NGOs in the country providing various social services including Primary Healthcare, Rural Development, Rural BPO, Education and Social Empowerment since the year 1997. The plaintiff in 1997 got registered in the name of 'Khanna Foundation'. Then in July, 1999, the name of the plaintiff was changed to 'Umeed Khanna Foundation' and since February, 2006, the name was again changed to 'UMEED'.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has used the said word in isolation or in association with various other words which reflect the uniformity and consistency in the plaintiff’s identification of its services by the word 'UMEED'. The registration under the said trade mark is pending in the name of the plaintiff.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff against the defendant is that the plaintiff came to know about the defendant from its website www.umeedhealthcare.com which claims that the defendant is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act who claims to have started the same in order to help the poor and underprivileged children who need medical treatment. In the website, the defendant has claimed that it is running an NGO in the name and style of 'UMEED HEALTH CARE SOCIETY'. Thus, it is a case of confusion and deception and in fact, the defendant in the public at large is creating the confusion in order to show that it has some association, connection or source with the plaintiff which, in fact, is untrue. The defendant is also diluting the name 'UMEED' by using the identical name which is highly distinctive and associated with the plaintiff exclusively. The plaintiff is the prior user of the said name.

5. The suit as well as the interim application was listed before Court on 8th November, 2011. After hearing, the Court passed the ex parte ad-interim injunction order restraining the defendant from using the name and mark 'UMEED' or any deceptively similar trademark. The said interim order has been continuing from time to time. Even, the plaintiff has filed an application being I.A. No.19813/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC and Section 12 read with Section 2A of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that despite of the interim order passed by this Court, the defendant is still using the deceptively similar name 'UMED'. The justification given by the defendant is that the names 'UMED' and 'UMEED' are dissimilar. The mark 'UMED' was adopted by the defendant from the name of the father of the President of the Society.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant on the last date of hearing argued before the Court that the earlier name used by the defendant 'UMEED' and the name used by the defendant after passing the interim order, i.e. 'UMED', are not deceptively similar. Arguments were heard for some time. After hearing, this Court was of the considered view that the two names are deceptively similar. Therefore, the learned counsel for the defendant was asked to take the instructions from his client in case the disputes between the parties could be resolved.

7. When the matter is taken up today before Court, the statement was made by the learned counsel for the defendant that in case, the plaintiff will not press the reliefs for damages, rendition of account and cost, the defendant would change its name to 'REHAM UMED HEALTH CARE SOCIETY' in order to avoid any confusion or deception. It appears to the Court that in case the defendant will use the above said name, there would not be any confusion or deception in the market. The suggestion of the Court is very fairly acceptable to the learned counsel for the plaintiff who states that in case the defendant will use the changed name 'REHAM UMED HEALTH CARE SOCIETY', the plaintiff has no objection if a mere decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff will not press the relief for the damages, cost and rendition of accounts.

8. Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the defendant may use the said name, i.e. 'REHAM UMED HEALTH CARE SOCIETY' from today onwards. A decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of para 27A of the plaint which reads as under:-

'27A. A Decree of permanent and mandatory injunction be granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, its employees, partners, constituents, affiliates, assigns, representatives etc. from using the mark 'UMEED' in relation to its Non-Governmental Organisation or any other mark or name which is similar to Plaintiff’s mark 'UMEED' in relation to any NGO or any other activity allied and cognate to Plaintiff’s organization, thereby resulting in passing off and further from doing any act including use of the word 'UMEED' for its organisation resulting in dilution of Plaintiff’s nam

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e or trademark; from indulging in any activities which may constitute act of unfair competition; and further a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to change its name.' 9. The other reliefs are already given up by the plaintiff. A decree be drawn accordingly. 10. The suit and the interim application being I.A. No.17528/2011 are accordingly disposed of as also another pending application being I.A. No.19813/2011 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC and Section 12 read with Section 2A of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
O R