1.

associated with various schools and universities wherein it provided education, training
and coaching services to the students at the school level also.
2. The providing educational services of the highest class to the students was done by the
plaintiff under registered trademark i.e. “Dot on Target” has become a distinctive and
well- known mark under Section 2 (z) (g) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It is the case in
which the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has adopted an identical and
deceptively similar mark to that of the plaintiff.
3. The defendants named Rajneesh Gupta and his five partners were also engaged in the
business of providing coaching to the students. The name of their coaching institute was
“Dot on Time”. Further they launched a computer training program under the name “Dot
on Target: Eklaya”. In no span of time the defendant’s company got very popular in the
IT Education and Training education having its offices in several locations in India and
Abroad.
4. According to the plaintiff the defendant is using the impugned mark out of greed with a
view to take advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff contended that it has a huge set up and interactive curriculum, thereby
imparting theoretical as well as practical knowledge to the students who appear for
competitive exams and over the years, the plaintiff’s plinth of students has constantly
increased with the reputation and goodwill it has achieved.
5. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the defendant by using the registered trademark of the
plaintiff, as part of their educational and training course is infringing upon the valuable
statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff in its registered trademark. It is also the
case of the plaintiff that the defendant has in an unauthorized manner started using the
mark “Dot on Time” as part of its trade, without taking any permission or authorization
from the plaintiff, thereby, deliberately creating confusion with an attempt to dilute the
reputation and name commanded by the plaintiff among the students. Because of this
there is substantial loss and damage caused to the plaintiff’s goodwill, name, and
reputation in the market, which it has arduously built over years.
 6. Not just that the defendant launched a website in the name of www.dotontime.com where
the information which is given is almost the same as that found on the website of the
plaintiff www.dotontarget.com.
7. The defendant contended that there lies no similarity between the defendant’s and the
plaintiff’s mark as it is a well settled principle of law that the marks are to be compared
as a whole, and the defendants mark essentially bears the reputed trademark The Turning
point as it has reputation not just in India but also abroad.
8. The Plaintiff has filed a case of infringement. Decide.

Allotted to:
16137- 16141
16147- 16152
16159- 16161
16164- 16166
16168- 16170

MOOT PROPOSITION 5

1. The plaintiff was running a business under the name of “Electro Waves and Co.” and were into
manufacturing of electrical appliances and the most popular were the tube lights and bulbs which
were sold under the name of “Electro Light”. The business of plaintiff was situated in India and
had good amount of reputation and goodwill in India. The name of the company was a registered
trademark.
2. The plaintiff once discovered that someone was manufacturing, exporting and selling tube
lights and bulbs in the Middle East countries under the brand name “Electro Light” which
amounted to infringement of the plaintiff's registered patents, trademarks, and designs and
constituted passing off the goods as those of the plaintiff’s goods. This fact came to the
knowledge of the plaintiff when the plaintiff had gone to Dubai and purchased a bulb of brand
name “Electro Light” from Dubai and was shocked to see that it constituted infringement of the