Introduction:

In Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors. [CS(COMM) 1262/2025], the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a Gujarat-based air-hostess training institute from using the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” or any other deceptively similar variation. The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on December 8, 2025, and will remain in force until March 16, 2026. The Court held that “FLY HIGH” is the dominant and source-identifying component of the impugned marks and that its adoption by the defendant for identical services created a strong likelihood of consumer confusion, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff’s trademark rights. The suit was instituted by Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd., a well-known player in aviation and hospitality training, which asserted long-standing statutory and common law rights in the mark “FLY HIGH,” adopted in 2004 and registered since 2007.

Factual Background:

Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. operates a nationwide network of institutes offering training in aviation, air-hostess preparation, hospitality, travel management, and customer services, including under the names “Frankfinn Institute of Air-Hostess Training” and “FLY HIGH.” Over the years, Frankfinn claimed to have invested substantially in brand-building through advertising, online presence, and institutional expansion, thereby generating significant goodwill and reputation associated with the “FLY HIGH” mark.

The defendant, Fly High Institute, a Gujarat-based training institute, was alleged to be offering identical air-hostess and aviation-related services while using the “FLY HIGH” name as a trade name and brand identifier. Frankfinn placed on record evidence showing that the defendant had previously filed trademark applications for “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” which were opposed by Frankfinn and subsequently recorded as abandoned by the Trade Marks Registry. A later application for “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE” remained pending.

Frankfinn further demonstrated that the defendant was operating a website and inviting enrollments from across India using the impugned marks, thereby targeting the same consumer base—students aspiring for aviation careers—and creating a tangible risk of confusion and association. In light of these facts, Frankfinn approached the Delhi High Court seeking urgent interim protection.

Issues for Consideration:

Whether “FLY HIGH” constitutes the dominant and source-identifying element of the defendant’s marks, rendering them deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark.

Whether the defendant’s use of the impugned marks for identical services amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and dilution.

Whether “FLY HIGH” is generic or descriptive for aviation training services, thereby disentitling the plaintiff to exclusive rights.

Whether students enrolling in aviation institutes could reasonably distinguish between the plaintiff and the defendant despite the similarity of marks.

Arguments on Behalf of the Plaintiff:

Senior Advocate C.M. Lall, appearing for Frankfinn, contended that the plaintiff is the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the “FLY HIGH” mark, with continuous use since 2004 and statutory registration since 2007. It was argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning exclusively associated with Frankfinn due to extensive promotion, nationwide operations, and long-standing market presence.

The plaintiff emphasized that the defendant was offering identical services to the same target audience and had adopted “FLY HIGH” as the dominant element of its trade name and branding. Such adoption, it was argued, was not coincidental but a deliberate attempt to ride on Frankfinn’s goodwill and mislead consumers into believing an association or affiliation.

Frankfinn also relied on prior proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, highlighting that the defendant’s earlier applications had been opposed and abandoned, evidencing knowledge of Frankfinn’s rights. The plaintiff submitted that continued use of the mark through websites, domain names, meta tags, and keywords compounded the risk of confusion in the digital space.

Addressing the plea of descriptiveness, the plaintiff relied on a February 2022 Delhi High Court judgment recognizing Frankfinn’s proprietary rights in “FLY HIGH” and holding that the expression is not descriptive of its services. Denial of interim relief, it was argued, would cause irreparable harm to Frankfinn’s goodwill and brand equity, which could not be adequately compensated by damages.

Arguments on Behalf of the Defendants:

Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal, appearing for the defendants, argued that “FLY HIGH” is a generic and laudatory expression, commonly used in the aviation context, and therefore incapable of exclusive appropriation. It was contended that the mark merely conveyed an aspirational idea associated with flying and could not be monopolized.

The defendants further submitted that students enrolling in air-hostess training institutes are discerning consumers who would be able to distinguish between different institutions based on factors such as location, faculty, and infrastructure, thereby negating any likelihood of confusion.

It was also argued that the defendant’s branding included additional elements such as “INSTITUTE” and “FH”, which sufficiently distinguished its mark from that of the plaintiff. On this basis, the defendants sought denial of interim relief.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning:

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the defendants’ submissions and found a strong prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. The Court held that in assessing deceptive similarity, the focus must be on the essential and dominant features of the competing marks. Applying this test, the Court concluded that “FLY HIGH” is the dominant and source-identifying portion of the defendant’s marks and is identical to the plaintiff’s registered trademark.

The Court observed that where identical services are offered under marks sharing the same dominant element, the likelihood of consumer confusion is significantly heightened. The addition of generic terms such as “INSTITUTE” or initials like “FH” did not mitigate the similarity or alter the overall commercial impression.

Rejecting the plea of descriptiveness, the Court relied on the 2022 Delhi High Court decision recognizing Frankfinn’s proprietary rights and holding that “FLY HIGH” is not descriptive of aviation training services. The Court reaffirmed that prior judicial recognition of trademark distinctiveness weighs heavily at the interim stage.

Addressing consumer perception, the Court held that students are likely to believe that the defendant institute is associated or affiliated with Frankfinn, particularly given the deceptive similarity of the trade names and the identical nature of services. The Court emphasized that in education and training services, trust and brand association play a crucial role in consumer decision-making.

On balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the Court found that continued use of the impugned marks would erode Frankfinn’s goodwill, cause brand dilution, and mislead consumers—harm that could not be adequately remedied by damages.

Court’s Order:

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Fly High Institute and its associates from using “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” or any deceptively similar mark in any manner, including as a trade name, logo, domain name, meta tag, or keyword, so as to result in infringement, passing off, unfair competition, or dilution of Frankfinn’s trademark rights. The injunction shall remain in force until March 16, 2026, when the matter will be listed next.