Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction On Getmyuni; Holds Publicly Available University Data Can Be Used If Not Disparaging
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has set aside injunction orders restraining an edtech platform from using the names, information and details of two universities on its website. The Court held that publicly available information can be used, provided it is not presented in a disparaging manner. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed that the respondents failed to establish a prima facie case warranting interim protection.
Factual Background
Getmyuni Education Services Private Limited, an edtech start-up operating the website www.getmyuni.com describes itself as an online platform providing consolidated information about universities and educational institutions. The platform compiles publicly available data such as rankings, fee structures and zone-wise listings.
Mangalayatan University and Usha Martin University filed suits before the trial court, contending that the appellant was unauthorisedly using their names and details on its website and displaying rankings that were allegedly disparaging. On 28 March 2023, the Additional District Judge (ADJ-01), South West District, Dwarka Courts, restrained the appellant from using the name, information and details of the respondent universities and directed deletion of such content pending adjudication of the suits. Aggrieved by the injunction orders, Getmyuni preferred appeals before the High Court.
Procedural Background
Before the High Court, the appellant contended that it merely aggregates and displays information that is already available in the public domain. It submitted that it follows ranking parameters and weightage used by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) and also displays rankings published by independent agencies such as The Week and India Today.
The respondent universities argued that the appellant’s search platform did not replicate the results appearing on Google search and that the rankings displayed on the website adversely affected their professional reputation.
The High Court examined whether the injunction granted by the trial court was justified in the absence of a prima facie case of disparagement or intellectual property infringement.
Issues
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to use publicly available information relating to the respondent universities.
2. Whether the display of rankings referenced from open-source and public domain material amounted to disparagement.
3. Whether the respondents had established a prima facie case warranting continuation of the injunction.
Contentions of the Parties
The appellant submitted that it does not alter or manipulate rankings and does not add editorial comments on the quality of services of the institutions listed. It contended that its platform functions as a one-stop information source for students, relying exclusively on publicly available extracts and ranking methodologies already in the public domain.
The respondents argued that the manner of display of rankings on the website was disparaging and that the search results on the appellant’s platform did not match those available through general search engines, thereby potentially harming their reputation.
Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Ohri observed that there was no material to demonstrate that the appellant had manipulated or “tinkered” with the NIRF rankings or other published rankings. The Court noted that the appellant had not added its own commentary or opinion regarding the quality of services of the respondent institutions.
The Court further observed that the respondents had neither challenged the rankings issued by the ranking agencies nor exercised their right to be forgotten by seeking removal of their information from search engine results.
Importantly, the Court found no allegation or evidence of appropriation of the respondents’ intellectual property or any attempt by the appellant to claim association with their marks.
Holding that the use of publicly available information is permissible so long as it is not disparagingly presented, the Court concluded that the respondents failed to establish a prima facie case. The argument that the rankings were disparaging was termed “unconvincing,” particularly since they were based on open-source and publicly available material.
Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the injunction orders passed by the trial court and disposed of the appeals. The Court held that the appellant is entitled to use publicly available information about the respondent universities, provided such information is not presented in a disparaging manner.
In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Udian Sharma, Mr. Jaitegan Singh Khurana, Mr. Aarzoo Aneja, Mr. Manav Mitra, Ms. Subhika Joshi, Mr. Sahil Saraswat, and Ms. Harsha Sadhwani, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Avneet Singh Sikka, Advocate.