The Supreme Court has directed six educational institutions in Telangana operating under the name “Princeton” to prominently clarify that they have no connection whatsoever with Princeton University, New Jersey, United States of America. While disposing of a dispute between Princeton University and Vagdevi Educational Society, the Court supplemented an earlier Delhi High Court order by imposing additional safeguards aimed at protecting the Ivy League institution’s reputation and preventing prospective students from being misled.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing special leave petitions arising from an order of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute concerning the use of the mark “Princeton” by educational institutions run by the respondents in Telangana.
The Court noted that the underlying commercial suit remains pending before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and therefore refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the parties’ claims. However, it took note of the Division Bench’s finding that Princeton University had established a prima facie case in its favour. The Division Bench had nevertheless allowed the respondents to continue using the mark for institutions already operating under the name “Princeton”, while restraining them from using the mark for any new institutions during the pendency of the suit.
Recognising Princeton University’s global reputation, the Supreme Court observed:
“
“There can be no doubt that the petitioner, an Ivy League school in the United States of America (USA), has its reputation and goodwill to protect. Students may well be misled by the use of its name by others offering educational courses.”
To safeguard both Princeton University’s interests and those of prospective students, the Court directed all 6 respondent institutions to publish a disclaimer on their websites, prospectuses and all admission-related material stating in clear terms that they have no connection whatsoever with Princeton University, New Jersey, United States of America. The Court specified that the disclaimer on the institutions’ websites must appear in the largest font size used on the website.
The Bench further directed the respondents to publish quarter-page notices in the Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu newspapers, clearly stating that the six institutions run by them have no connection with Princeton University. These notices are to be published on alternate days between June 1 and June 12, 2026.
In addition, the Court ordered the institutions to prominently display boards outside each of their campuses carrying the same disclaimer. Any certificates issued to students by the institutions must also contain the disclaimer in clear and bold letters.
The Court directed that all these measures be implemented before the commencement of the next academic year’s admission process. It also reiterated the Delhi High Court’s observation that the parties should endeavour to secure an expeditious disposal of the pending suit.
Disposing of the special leave petitions, the Court clarified that all issues remain open for determination in the pending commercial suit before the Delhi High Court.
