Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 OCTOBER 2018

The Curious Case of 'Amity'

AMLEGALS
Explore more from AMLEGALS

That case of the Plaintiff is that it started the chain of "AMITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL" and established its first school in the year 1991 in New Delhi and subsequently opened AMITY UNIVERSITY and AMITY LAW SCHOOL across various cities.

IndiaIntellectual Property
AMLEGALS
AMLEGALS
Author LinkedIn connections

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION V. RANCHHOD M SHAH & ORS

CS (COMM) 236/2016

DATE OF DECISION: 16.10.2018

FACTS

That case of the Plaintiff is that it started the chain of "AMITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL" and established its first school in the year 1991 in New Delhi and subsequently opened AMITY UNIVERSITY and AMITY LAW SCHOOL across various cities. The Plaintiff also holds registration of its trademark under various classes of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act).

Further, that a trust named Gyanada Educational Trust ("GET") started "AMITY SCHOOL, Bharuch" as a lower primary school in 1986.

Whilst, the Gyanada Educational and Medical Trust ("GEMT") (in the present suit Defendant No. 5), has been using the mark "AMITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL" (in the present suit Defendant No. 6), for its school based in Gujarat.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

This content is purely an academic analysis under "Legal intelligence series".

© Copyright AMLEGALS.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this document is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion, advice or any advertisement. This document is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. Readers should not act on the information provided herein without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. There can be no assurance that the judicial/quasi-judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned herein.

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law