Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Rival Aviation Institute From Infringing Frankfinn's “FLY HIGH” Trademark
The Delhi High Court has passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Fly High Institute, a Nagpur based aviation institute, from using the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” or any other mark deceptively similar to “FLY HIGH,” a registered trademark of Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. The injunction will remain in force until...
The Delhi High Court has passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Fly High Institute, a Nagpur based aviation institute, from using the marks “FLY HIGH,” “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE,” or any other mark deceptively similar to “FLY HIGH,” a registered trademark of Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd.
The injunction will remain in force until March 16, 2026.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, while passing the order on December 8, 2025, held that “FLY HIGH” is the dominant and source-identifying part of the marks used by Fly High Institute.
“As the essential and source-identifying portion of the mark used by Fly High Institute is 'FLY HIGH', identical to the Plaintiff's mark, the likelihood of consumer confusion stands significantly increased,” the court observed.
The suit was filed by Frankfinn Aviation Services, which provides training in aviation, hospitality, travel management and customer services through its institutes, including under the names “Frankfinn Institute of Air-Hostess Training” and “FLY HIGH.”
Frankfinn stated that it adopted the “FLY HIGH” mark in 2004 and that it has been registered since 2007. The company also placed on record material showing its nationwide presence, website use and extensive promotion of the mark.
Frankfinn told the Court that Fly High Institute was offering identical air-hostess and aviation-related training services while using the “FLY HIGH” name. It pointed out that earlier trademark applications filed by the institute for “FLY HIGH INSTITUTE” were opposed by Frankfinn and were later recorded as abandoned by the Trade Marks Registry.
A later application seeking registration of “FH FLY HIGH INSTITUTE” is presently pending. Frankfinn also stated that Fly High Institute was operating a website offering identical services under the “FLY HIGH” name and inviting enrolments from across India.
The court rejected the argument that “FLY HIGH” is generic or descriptive. In doing so, it relied on a February 2022 Delhi High Court judgment which recognised Frankfinn's proprietary rights in the “FLY HIGH” mark and held that the expression is not descriptive of its services.
The court also rejected the submission that students enrolling in air-hostess training institutes would be able to distinguish between the two entities.
It observed, “Keeping in view the deceptive similarity of the tradename adopted by Fly High Institute, the students are likely to believe that the institute is associated or affiliated to Frankfinn.”
Holding that Frankfinn had made out a prima facie case and that denial of interim protection would cause irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation, the court granted interim relief.
Accordingly, Fly High Institute and its associates have been restrained from using the impugned marks 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 matter will next be listed on March 16, 2026.
Case Title: Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1262/2025
For Plaintiffs: Senior Advocate CM Lall with Advocates Kulvinder Singh Kohli, Kapil Midha, Muskaan Garg, Garv Singh, Sindhoora Ravindran and Vartika Gautam.
For Defendants: Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal with Advocates Pankaj Kapoor, Nikhil, Ashish Tarwani, Shafiya and Shikhar Singh.