Injunction Denied to (Generic) Trademark in the field of Education: SC of India

In Law, once a trademark becomes generic it is open to public domain.
Being significantly applied in law, it is understood that a generic
mark never receives any trademark protection and they are free for
everybody to use. This principle has found place in the recent
trademark dispute of [Skyline Education Institute (I) Private Ltd v.
S.L Vaswani and Anr. Civil Appeal no 1362 of 2005]. Skyline Education
Institution in a move against S.L Vaswani and Anr alleged them for
breach of Trademark before the Supreme Court of India. Skyline
Education Institution, the appellant is a company incorporated under
companies Act whose main object is to impart and train in all fields
of education. Satilila Charitable society, the respondent No: 1 is
registered under the Societies Registration Act whose aim meets with
that of Skyline Education Institution. An appeal was filed before the
division bench of High Court against order passed by the single judge
of High Court who refused to restrain Satilila Charitable Society and
S.L.Vaswani from using the term 'Skyline' as a part of their trade
name. The division bench expressed its agreement with the learned
single judge that the word 'Skyline' is generic and is adoptive. Hence
an appeal lies to the Supreme Court.
Skyline Education Institution submitted that Satilila Charitable
Society established an institution with the name Skyline Institute of
Engineering and Technology and the usage of the word 'Skyline' as a
prefix in the name of Institution would amount to confusion in the
mind of the general public and prospective students. In this respect
Skyline Education Institution proceeded with suit for grant of
permanent injunction and further prayed for award of damages and to
give details of the profits earned by Satilila Charitable Society.
Satilia Charitable Society contented that Skyline Education
Institution can't monopolize the word Skyline since it is used
worldwide. Further claimed that as per the present law no trademark
can be granted in respect of educational services. The court in this
regard took the view that Skyline Education Institution cannot
establish exclusive rights over a generic word. However, the court
concluded partly in favour of Skyline Education Institution stating
that Satilila Charitable Society is restricted from introducing
similar course to that of Skyline Education Institution and further
added that they must include a disclaimer in their advertisement that
Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology is not related to
Skyline Education Institution. The court in this regard took note that
the division bench independently considered the entire matter and had
expressed its agreement with the learned single judge recording that
Skyline Education Institution has failed to make out a prima facie
case for grant of injunction. Satilila Charitable Society further went
on to aver that the decision by the learned single judge followed by
division bench in directing them to attach a disclaimer was not
justified.
The Supreme Court acknowledging the nature of the case noted that the
appeal is allowed and Satilila and S.L Vaswani need not publish a
disclaimer along with the advertisement of their education
institutions thus the modified injunction granted by the single judge
is vacated and Skyline Education Institution was ordered to bear the
cost of groundless litigation upon S.L Vaswani and Anr.