JUDGMENT : 1. In a suit for infringement of the registered trademark of the plaintiffs and for passing off of the business and marks of the plaintiffs by the defendants, the plaintiffs have sought interim protection in this application. This application has been heard after completion of affidavits. 2. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, since December 19, 1994 the plaintiff No. 1 has been operating as “IIHM” with the abbreviation “IIHM” forming a distinct and prominent part of its registered trademarks. The trademarks have been registered in classes 41 and 35. The registration of the trademark under class 35 has expired on April 24, 2017. The plaintiffs have applied for renewal of the same which is pending. The trademark registration in respect of class 41 has been renewed till July 17, 2027. He has contended that, the mark and/or letters “IIHM” is the dominant and essential part of the trademark registrations of the plaintiffs. 3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiffs have been using the trademarks and the abbreviation “IIHM” extensively and have advertised the same with wide publicity in various newspapers, print media and other social media. The plaintiffs have published brochure from time to time bearing the registered trademark as also the acronym. The plaintiffs have a domain name as “iihm.ac.in” which also appears in the brochure. According to him, the abbreviation “IIHM” by customary usage over time has become synonymous with the hotel management and catering service courses offered by the plaintiff No.1. He has contended that, the trademarks of the plaintiffs have acquired substantial reputation and goodwill all over India. 4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has drawn the attention of the court to the caution notice issued by the plaintiffs as also the replies thereto. He has referred to the prior suit and the contempt proceedings. He has submitted that, prior to the institution of the present suit, the plaintiffs had filed CS No. 186 of 2010 complaining of infringement and passing off against the defendants. He has referred to the prior suit and the contempt proceedings. He has submitted that, prior to the institution of the present suit, the plaintiffs had filed CS No. 186 of 2010 complaining of infringement and passing off against the defendants. He has submitted that, an interim order was passed in July 15, 2010 restraining the defendants from using “IIHM” as part of its name or literature or any other matter without using the full form of its name in similar font and in similar size used by the defendants to print “IIHM” in the relevant literature or material. Such interim order had been confirmed on December 24, 2010. He has contended that, the defendants did not comply with such orders. The plaintiffs had filed four separate contempt petitions. He has referred to the first contempt petition been CC No. 60 of 2010 in which a Rule was issued and subsequently dismissed as the Rule was not served upon the contemnors. In the second contempt petition been CC No. 110 of 2011 a Rule had been issued and the same was disposed of by the order dated January 21, 2011. The third contempt petition been CC No. 87 of 2015 had been disposed of by an order dated July 31, 2015 on the basis of the stand taken by the contemnors therein. He has referred to the contempt petition of CC No. 87 of 2015 and the affidavits filed therein. He has submitted that, the defendants had admitted that the acronym “IIHM” was akin to the abbreviation “IIHM” and undertook to use the same with the full name, Indian Institute of Hotel Management in the same font and in the same size or do away with it altogether. According to him, the stand of the defendants had led to the passing of the order dated July 31, 2021. He has submitted that, the defendants continued to violate the order dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed by the order dated December 24, 2010. The plaintiffs had filed the fourth contempt petition been CC No. 52 of 2016. Such contempt petition had been disposed of by the order dated September 23, 2016. He has submitted that, the defendants continued to violate the order dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed by the order dated December 24, 2010. The plaintiffs had filed the fourth contempt petition been CC No. 52 of 2016. Such contempt petition had been disposed of by the order dated September 23, 2016. He has contended that, such contempt proceedings had been dropped since the operative part of the order dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed on December 24, 2010 did not refer to the logo or the pictorial depiction of the abbreviated form of the name of the institute run by the defendants. The court had held that, on a strict interpretation of the order dated July 15, 2010 it did not appear that the operative part of the order dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed in December 24, 2010 dealt with the new logo and that the ornate and unusual logo used by the defendants would not be in the contempt proceedings be seen to be used as an abbreviated form of “IIHM”. 5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the present suit is on the basis of a fresh cause of action. The plaintiffs had come across advertisement in the newspaper on February 3, 2020 wherein the defendants published an advertisement by using the logo of the plaintiffs without using the full form, Indian Institute of Hotel Management alongside the acronym and in similar font and size. Such advertisement has also shown the domain name “iihmkolkata.com”. He has submitted that, the defendants have thereafter continued to use the acronym/logo “IIHM” without adhering to the same font and size requirement when printing Indian Institute of Hotel Management. He has contended that, the defendants have done so in order to cash in on the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs in the abbreviation “IIHM”. 6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, although the defendants had applied for a trademark and obtained registration in respect thereof on June 15, 2015, the respondents have not used the same. Rather they have been using the abbreviation and/or acronym “IIHM”. The defendants have not offered any explanation as to why they are not using the registered trademark existing in their favour after passing of the orders dated July 15, 2010 and December 24, 2010 in the earlier suit. Rather they have been using the abbreviation and/or acronym “IIHM”. The defendants have not offered any explanation as to why they are not using the registered trademark existing in their favour after passing of the orders dated July 15, 2010 and December 24, 2010 in the earlier suit. He has contended that, the continued user of the abbreviation “IIHM” by the defendants establishes the intention of the defendants to trade on the reputation of the plaintiff No.1. He has referred to the sales figures of the defendants. He has pointed out that, the defendants have used the mark of the plaintiffs in their domain name. The defendants have started using the abbreviation and acronym of the plaintiffs in school uniforms, banks and satchels of the students of the defendants. He has referred to the user of the abbreviation and acronym of the plaintiffs in such material by the defendants. He has referred to the order dated December 2, 2020 passed in the instant suitin which according to the plaintiffs, the defendants had admitted that such user amounts to trading on the goodwill of the plaintiffs. 7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendants have designed their website and domain name with the purpose of trading on the reputation of the plaintiffs. He has contended that, any person assessing the website of the defendants will find that the domain name of the defendants is associated with the International Institute of Hotel Management that is the institute run by the plaintiffs. The defendants have not explained such conduct. The defendants had caused its digital marketing service provider to hack into the Google listing page of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had filed a police complaint on July 15, 2020. The defendants had sought to settle the matter which was communicated to the police by the representatives of the defendants by the letter dated June 22, 2020. In spite of such settlement the defendants have continued to pass off their business as that of the plaintiffs. The defendants have been using the Twitter handle “iihmkolkata@kolkataIihm” and Instagram page “kolkataiihm”. The defendants have been using email address as “iihm.org@gmail.com” and the domain name “iihmkolkata.com” to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs. 8. In spite of such settlement the defendants have continued to pass off their business as that of the plaintiffs. The defendants have been using the Twitter handle “iihmkolkata@kolkataIihm” and Instagram page “kolkataiihm”. The defendants have been using email address as “iihm.org@gmail.com” and the domain name “iihmkolkata.com” to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs. 8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the defendants have misled the student community into believing that the defendants are the institute of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have received complaints from government bodies with regard to the institute of the defendants. He has submitted that, the government authorities are treating the institute of the defendants as part of the institute of the plaintiffs. He has contended that, the public at large believe that, the institute run by the defendants is the same as that of the institute run by the plaintiffs. The user of the acronym of the plaintiffs is an attempt on the part of the defendants to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs. 9. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated January 7, 2021 complaining of acts of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated December 2, 2020.In response to such notice, the defendants by a letter dated January 12, 2021 accepted the fact that there had been a violation of the order dated December 2, 2020 but contended that some of the violationsthat occurred due to inadvertence and the others have been due to acts of agencies that had voluntarily uploaded such materials. The defendants had preferred an appeal from the order dated December 2, 2020. The plaintiffs have also filed a contempt petition being CC No. 8 of 2021 on February 12, 2021. 10. Learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has relied upon 1997 Volume (1) Supreme Court Cases 99 (Bengal Waterproof Ltd versus Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and another) in support of the contention that, the present suit is maintainable. According to him, subsequent to the first suit, the actions of the defendants have given rise to fresh cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the instant suit. 11. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the defendants has contended that, there exist registered trademarks in favour of both the plaintiffs and the defendant. According to him, subsequent to the first suit, the actions of the defendants have given rise to fresh cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the instant suit. 11. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the defendants has contended that, there exist registered trademarks in favour of both the plaintiffs and the defendant. According to him, both the plaintiffs and the defendants are having their respective marks registered as Label Mark without having separate registration of each of the design elements for the abbreviation separately, inasmuch as the trade name that is, International Institute of Hotel Management and the abbreviation there of that is “IIHM”. According to him, the abbreviation is required to be separately registered under the provisions of Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He has referred to the plaint of the previous suit of the plaintiffs and the players made therein. He has also referred to the introductory application filed by the plaintiffs in the previous suit. He has referred to the orders passed in the previous suit namely the order dated July 15, 2010 and December 24, 2010. According to him, none of the parties to the previous suit have challenged the orders passed in the previous suit and therefore, the order dated July 15, 2010 has become final on the issue of user of the abbreviation “IIHM” between the parties. He has referred to the repeated applications for contempt filed by the plaintiffs. In particular, he has referred to the contempt petition being CC No. 52 of 2016. He has contended that, the plaintiffs filed the present suit after a lapse of more than five years from the date when the initial cause of action had arisen. He has submitted that, the plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the logo of the defendants as disclosed in CC No. 87 of 2015. 12. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendants has submitted that, the previous suit and the present suit are between the same parties relating to the same subject matter. According to him, the user of the abbreviation “IIHM” has been conclusively decided between the parties in the previous suit and is therefore no more res integra. 12. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendants has submitted that, the previous suit and the present suit are between the same parties relating to the same subject matter. According to him, the user of the abbreviation “IIHM” has been conclusively decided between the parties in the previous suit and is therefore no more res integra. He has contended that, the present suit and the applications are nothing but an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to achieve something in a circumlocutory manner which the plaintiffs could not have achieved earlier. He has highlighted the fact that, the parties to the suit are business rivals and that, the plaintiffs are trying to resist the prospect of the defendants involved in the same business by whatever means possible. 13. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendants has distinguished Bengal Waterproof Ltd (supra). He has contended that, the facts of the present case are different to those obtaining in Bengal Waterproof Ltd (supra). He has contended that, since the same issue between the same parties has been raised in a subsequent suit, provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are attracted. According to him, the plaintiffs are seeking to review the earlier decision of coordinate bench between the same parties involving the same issue. 14. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the defendants have abandoned the domain name www.iihmkolkata.com which the defendants have been using for the last 16 years despite the same having got enough popularity amongst all. However the defendant shall use the domain name for one year from the date of the order. He has submitted that, the defendants are using “indianihm.com” and “indianihmkolkata.com” as the new domain names. 15. Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendants has referred to 2010 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) Page 217 (Three-NProducts Private Ltd versus Emami Ltd). He has also relied upon Sections 17 and 33 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. According to him, the plaintiffs have acquiesced their rights to raise any objections regarding user of the logo “IIHM” by the defendants till the date of the filing of the plaint on June 13, 2020. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interim relief as prayed for otherwise. 16. According to him, the plaintiffs have acquiesced their rights to raise any objections regarding user of the logo “IIHM” by the defendants till the date of the filing of the plaint on June 13, 2020. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interim relief as prayed for otherwise. 16. In reply, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the defendants did not take any objection with regard to Section 17 of the Act of 1999. In any event, Section 17 (2b) of the Act of 1999 itself recognises that where the trademark contains any matter which is not common to the trade and is distinctive, the registration of the trademark can confirm an exclusive right in the matter for which only a part of the whole of the trademark is so registered. He has contended that, the same has been recognised in Three-N-Products Private Ltd (supra). In any event, the plaintiffs have applied for a separate registration of the mark “IIHM”. As the defendants have not taken such point in the affidavit in opposition, such fact could not be brought on record by way of an affidavit in reply. He has relied upon Section 17 (2)(a)(i) of the Act of 1999 and contended that, the plaintiffs can maintain an action for infringement of a part of their registered trademark. 17. With regard to the orders dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed by the order dated December 24, 2010 and the order dated September 23, 2016 passed in the previous suit and the contempt petition are concerned, learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has contended that, the same assist the plaintiffs in obtaining the reliefs are sought for hearing. So far as pendency of the previous suit is concerned, he has relied upon Bengal Waterproof Ltd (supra). Referring to Section 33 of the Act of 1999, learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has contended that, no case of acquiescence or waiver has been made out. He has relied upon 2004 Volume (6) Supreme Court Cases 145 (Satyam Infoway Ltd versus Siffynet Solutions Private Limited) and contended that, it has been recognised that a domain name is easy to remember and use and is chosen as an instrument of commercial enterprise. 18. The parties to the present suit have been litigating amongst themselves for a considerable period of time. 18. The parties to the present suit have been litigating amongst themselves for a considerable period of time. The plaintiffs had filed a previous suit and four contempt petitions against the defendants. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit and applied for interim protection therein. In the present suit, the Court has passed an order dated December 2, 2020 in terms of prayer (c) of the petition. The defendants have preferred an appeal therefrom which is pending. 19. The issue of maintainability of the present suit has been decided on December 2, 2020. The Court has found the present suit to be maintainable. Although the defendants have preferred an appeal from the order dated December 2, 2020, the finding of the Court returned on December 2, 2020 on the issue of maintainability has not been set aside. The issue of maintainability of the present suit having been decided by the order dated December 2, 2020, no further discussion on such subject is necessary. 20. The defendants have contended that, apart from the issue of maintainability of the suit, there is an issue under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Whether all the issues raised in the present suit are same as those raised in the previous suit are issues both of fact and law and need not be decided at this stage as the defendants have failed to establish conclusively at this stage that, all the issues raised in the previous suit have been raised in the present suit. 21. Orders dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed on December 24, 2010 passed in the previous suit so also the order dated September 23, 2016 passed in CC No. 52 of 2016 have material bearing on the present application. The plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 3 have similar business. They have been running hotel and catering management school and educational training centres at Salt Lake, Kolkata. The plaintiffs have been carrying on business under the name and style of International Institute of Hotel Management. The defendants have been carrying on business under the name and style of Indian Institute of Hotel Management. Indisputably the plaintiffs have been using “iihm” to describe and identify the institute run by it much prior in point of time than that of the defendants. The defendants have been carrying on business under the name and style of Indian Institute of Hotel Management. Indisputably the plaintiffs have been using “iihm” to describe and identify the institute run by it much prior in point of time than that of the defendants. The plaintiffs have been using such mark since December 19, 1994 as it prima facie appears from the Certificate of Registration. In the previous suit, the Court had by the order dated July 15, 2010 restrained the defendant from using “IIHM” as part of its name or literature or any other material without using the full form of its name in similar font and similar size as the defendants print “IIHM” in the relevant literature or material. 22. Satyam Infoway Ltd (supra) has recognized that given the nature of the business, it may become necessary to maintain exclusive identity which a domain name requires. It has recognized that domain name has become associated with the nature of business and maintains the exclusivity of such business. In the virtual world, where commerce is conducted, domain name identifies the business. It is therefore imperative that a domain name which has identified itself with the business should be allowed to maintain its exclusivity. 23. Section 17 of the Act of 1999 has dealt with the effects of registration of parts of a mark. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act of 1999 has provided that when a trademark consists of several matters its registration has conferred on the proprietor exclusive right to use of the trademark taken as a whole. The exception thereto has been provided in sub-Section (2) of the Act of Section 17. It has provided that, when a trademark contains any part which is not a subject of a separate application by the proprietor for registration as a trademark or which is not separately registered by the proprietor as a trademark or contains any matter which is common to the trade or is otherwise of a non distinctive character, the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trademark so registered. Section 33 of the Act of 1999 has dealt with the effect of acquiescence. Section 33 of the Act of 1999 has dealt with the effect of acquiescence. It has provided that where the proprietor of an earlier trademark has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years in the use of a registered trademark being aware of that use, he shall no longer be entitled on the basis of that trademark to apply for a declaration that the registration of the later trade mark is invalid or to oppose the use of the later trademark in relation to the goods or services in relation to which it has been so used, unless registration of the later trademark was not applied in good faith. 24. The plaintiffs have registration of trademarks in classes 41 and 35. The registration of the trade mark of the plaintiffs under class 35 had expired on April 24, 2017 and the plaintiffs had applied for the renewal of the same. The renewal application has not been disposed of. The plaintiffs have registration in respect of class 41 till July 17, 2027. 25. The plaintiffs have been continuously using the mark and letter “IIHM”. The user has been prior in point of time than the defendants. In the facts of the present case at the prima facie stage, it cannot be said conclusively that, the plaintiffs have acquiesced in the use of the abbreviation “IIHM” by the defendants so as to attract Section 33 of the Act of 1999. The defendants have to establish that, they come within the purview of Section 33 of the Act of 1999. The history of litigation that the parties to the suit have, does not allow one to arrive at a conclusion at the prima facie stage that the plaintiffs have acquiesced in the defendants using IIHM. 26. Three-N-Products Private Ltd (supra) has held that registration of a composite mark by itself does not confer any exclusive right as to the part of the composite mark. It has noted Section 17 and Section 29 of the Act of 1999. The facts scenario in the present case is different. 27. The orders dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed on July 24, 2010 and the conduct of the defendants thereunder have been considered by the Court while passing the ad interim order on December 2, 2020. It has noted Section 17 and Section 29 of the Act of 1999. The facts scenario in the present case is different. 27. The orders dated July 15, 2010 as confirmed on July 24, 2010 and the conduct of the defendants thereunder have been considered by the Court while passing the ad interim order on December 2, 2020. Admittedly the defendants have been using a logo on the dress of the students and the bags used by the students. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants are engaged in the similar type of business, that is, running an educational institute. The logo that the defendants have been using on the dress of the students as well as on the bags used by the students have striking semblance with that of the logo used by the plaintiffs. In the present times, the students utilise the internet facility more than ever. In the virtual world, the existing domain name of the plaintiffs and the defendants are strikingly similar. At the interim stage, prima facie, it appears that the defendants are using the domain name of the plaintiffs in order to pass off the products of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs. 28. In such circumstances, a view different than that returned by the Court on December 2, 2020 at the interim stage need not be taken. The order dated December 2, 2020 is confirmed. Interim order in term of prayer (c) of the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs on October 15, 2020 will continue till the disposal of the suit. 29. I.A G.A No. 1 of 2020 in CS No. 50 of 2020 is disposed of accordingly.