Public University Data Can Be Used If Not Disparaging: Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction Against EdTech Site

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a trial court order restraining an education-technology start-up from using the names, information, and details of two universities on its website, holding that it has a right to use publicly available information so long as it is not presented disparagingly.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the respondents were “unable to make out a prima facie case” and termed it “an unconvincing argument” that rankings displayed on the website were disparaging when they were referenced to rankings available in the public domain and were open-sourced. 

“The respondents are unable to make out a prima facie case in their favour. The appellant has a right to use publicly available information about the respondents, as long as the same is not disparagingly presented by the appellant, as explained above. Hence, the impugned orders in both the appeals are set aside,” the Court held.

The appeals were filed by Getmyuni Education Services Private Limited against injunction orders obtained by Mangalayatan University and Usha Martin University.

On March 28, 2023, the ADJ-01, South West District, Dwarka Courts, had restrained the appellant from using the name, information and details of the respondent universities on its website, www.getmyuni.com, and directed deletion of such content during the pendency of the suits.

Before the High Court, the appellant described itself as an EdTech start-up functioning as an “online ready-to-go mall” for students, providing one-stop access to university-related information based on publicly available extracts. It submitted that it followed ranking parameters and weightage used by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) and also displayed rankings published by The Week and India Today, along with zone-wise listings and fee details.

The respondent-Universities contended that the appellant's search platform did not yield the same results as those appearing on the Google search engine and argued that the rankings shown on the website were disparaging to their professional reputation.

Justice Ohri observed that there was no evidence to show that the appellant had tinkered with NIRF rankings, added its own editorial comments, or commented on the quality of services provided by the ranked institutions. The Court further noted:

“The respondent has neither challenged the rankings made by the ranking agencies, nor has it exercised its right to be forgotten by making a request to Google to efface its existence from the Google search results.”

The court also recorded that there was no allegation of appropriation of the respondents' intellectual property or any attempt to claim association with their marks.

Holding that the respondents had failed to establish a prima facie case, the High Court set aside the trial court's injunction orders and disposed of the appeals.