Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In the appeals against the trial court’s orders whereby applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) were allowed and the EdTech-based search platform “www.getmyuni.com” (appellantt) was restrained from using the names, information and details of the plaintiff universities on its website, the Single Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., set aside the impugned interim injunction and held that appellant has a right to use publicly available information about the respondent universities, as long as the same is not presented in disparagingly manner.
The appellant is an EdTech-based search platform which provides consolidated information regarding universities and colleges to assist students in making informed choices. It displayed details of various institutions, including the respondent universities, based on data available in the public domain, including NIRF rankings and rankings published by magazines such as India Today and The Week.
The dispute arose in the background of failed negotiations between the parties for lead-generation campaigns, which had earlier received a “go-ahead” from the respondents but did not fructify. The respondents later filed suits seeking permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the appellant from using their names and details and also claimed damages. The trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of the universities.
The appellant challenged the interim injunction and contended that the platform acts in public interest by providing a one-stop platform for students. The information displayed was publicly available and falls within the statutory exceptions. There was no misrepresentation, association, or editorial comment on the quality of the institutions. Further, the impugned order would deprive students of valuable information.
The core issue was that whether the appellant could be restrained from displaying the respondents’ information sourced from the public domain on its website and whether such display amounted to disparagement, misrepresentation, or violation of intellectual property rights so as to justify an interim injunction.
The Court noted that there was no material to show that the appellant had tinkered with the NIRF rankings, added editorial comments, or commented upon the quality of the services of the ranked institutions. It was observed that the rankings displayed were referenced to open-source material available in the public domain, and therefore the allegation of disparagement was “unconvincing.” It was further noted that the respondents had “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 held that merely providing a hyperlink redirecting users to the respondents’ own websites did not amount to appropriation of intellectual property or false association. It was asserted that appellant has right to use of publicly available information so long as it is not presented in a disparaging manner.
The Court held that the respondents failed to establish a prima facie case, set aside the interim injunction granted by the trial court and disposed of both appeals in favour of the appellant.
[GetMyUni Education Services (P) Ltd. v. Mangalayatan University, FAO 126/2023 and CM APPL. 27117/2023, decided on 17-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Udian Sharma, Mr. Jaitegan Singh Khurana, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Mr. Manav Mitra, Ms. Subhika Joshi, Mr. Sahil Saraswat, and Ms. Harsha Sadhwani, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Avneet Singh Sikka, Counsel for the Respondent