Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Hisar Coaching Operators From Using 'CAREER POWER' Mark

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained two Hisar-based coaching operators from using the 'CAREER POWER' mark and its device, or the name 'METIS EDUVANTURES', in a passing off and copyright infringement suit filed by Metis Eduventures Private Limited India.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the judgment on October 5, 2026, observing that the company's rights needed protection through a final decree despite the operators having complied with an earlier interim injunction.

The company runs coaching programmes for Staff Selection Commission, banking and other competitive examinations. It claimed to have adopted the 'CAREER POWER' mark in 2010 and to operate more than 70 branches across the country.

The mark is unregistered. The company's 2012 registration application was refused, while a second application filed in May 2019 on a 'proposed to be used' basis was opposed by Arun Kumar in May 2022.

The company had entered into franchise and brand licensing agreements with the Hisar operators. A Brand Licensing and Brand Supply Agreement executed on April 1, 2019, expired on March 31, 2021, after the company claimed it received no renewal notice. It alleged that the operators continued using its mark and the name 'Metis Eduvantures' after the agreement ended.

After a cease-and-desist notice issued in June 2022 went unanswered, the company found Facebook and Instagram pages titled 'Career Power Hisar' displaying its device mark and linking to its website.

The court granted an interim injunction on December 23, 2022. Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited and Arun Kumar subsequently took down the Facebook page and changed their coaching centre's name. The court passed a consent decree against them on April 3, 2025, directing the company to change its corporate name to remove 'CAREER POWER' and any deceptively similar mark.

The company then sought a decree against the remaining operators, M/s Metis Eduvantures and Kuldeep, who had been proceeded against ex parte. Neither filed a written statement.

The court noted that the 120-day deadline for filing written statements in commercial suits had expired. It also found that the two operators who had contested the case had already suffered a decree on the same reliefs, leaving no surviving defence that could conflict with the new decree.

Since the plaint was verified and supported by an affidavit, and the remaining operators had not filed affidavits admitting or denying the company's documents, the documents were deemed admitted. The court held that recording ex parte evidence would serve no purpose other than repeating the verified plaint.

It observed that compliance with the interim injunction offered no assurance that the operators would not resume using the mark once the order ceased to operate.

“There is nothing on record to assure the Court that the use will not resume once the interim order ceases to operate. In fact, their persistent absence despite service is itself a reason why the plaintiff's rights must be secured by a final decree,” the court observed.

The court permanently restrained the operators from using the disputed marks to pass off their services as the company's and from using deceptively similar names. It also restrained unfair competition, dilution, tarnishment, and copyright infringement in the artistic and literary work comprising the device mark.

The earlier consent decree will continue to operate on its own terms.