In a significant legal development, a commercial court in Gurugram has issued an interim injunction against a local education firm, restraining it from using the globally renowned 'HARVARD' trademark for its programs and online platforms. The order was passed on January 3, 2026, by Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge of the exclusive commercial court, Mahavir Singh.
Court's Order and Specific Restraints
The court was hearing a plea filed by The President and Fellows of Harvard College, the official body representing the prestigious Ivy League university. The plaintiff alleged that BIG Red Education, the defendant firm, was dishonestly capitalizing on Harvard's worldwide reputation without any authorization.
The interim injunction explicitly prohibits the firm and its representatives from:
- Reproducing, using, or copying the 'HARVARD' mark for any educational programs.
- Offering courses under names like 'Harvard Youth Lead the Change' and 'Harvard Debate League' where 'Harvard' is used as a prefix or suffix.
- Using the website http://www.harvardvic.org or any other website containing the 'HARVARD' name.
- Engaging in any other activities likely to cause confusion or deception among the public.
Harvard's Arguments Against Unauthorized Use
Advocate R K Aggarwal, representing Harvard, presented a compelling case before the court. He argued that Harvard College, established in 1636, is the registered proprietor of the trademark and has invested enormous resources over centuries to build its brand in education and research.
The counsel highlighted that the defendant firm was using 'HARVARD' to prefix its courses, such as 'Harvard Youth Leadership Conference', and used phrases like 'Harvard Mentor' and 'Become a Harvard Trained leader' on its website and brochures. Harvard contended this demonstrated a 'malafide intent' to mislead students, who might associate the firm's substandard programs with the university's elite services, causing irreparable reputational and financial harm.
Defense's Counter-Arguments and Court's Decision
Appearing for the education firm, advocate Karan Bajaj argued that there was no infringement. He submitted that his client was not running a college or university but merely providing coaching and guidance. Bajaj stated that since some trainers were Harvard alumni, using the term 'Harvard Mentors' was permitted under Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows honest practices in commercial matters.
However, the court found merit in Harvard's plea, emphasizing the potential for confusion and the dilution of a world-famous trademark. The interim injunction stands to prevent any further unauthorized use until a final resolution of the case.
This ruling underscores the robust protection afforded to well-known trademarks in India and serves as a cautionary note to entities attempting to leverage established brand names without consent.
