In a highly infuriated and impassioned letter highlighted by Bar and Bench, (Retd.) Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court lambasted a public notice (dated July 31, 2025) issued by Dr. Asmita Vaidya, Principal of Government Law College (‘GLC’), Mumbai. This notice targeted “GLC Law and Lore”, an initiative led by GLC graduates that entails conversations with the institute’s alumni and students to address mentorship needs, share practical legal knowledge, and so on. To that end, the channel has featured leading corporate lawyers, judges, and academicians across ten episodes.
The notice, however, called upon the “administrators” of the platform to “immediately cease” using the term “GLC” for its branding and communication, failing which official action would be considered against them.
(Retd.) Justice Patel aptly remarked, “GLC is not a trade mark nor a service mark. It is the name of an institution and when we, and our students, use it, the intent is only to convey a sense of belonging, something that should be a matter of pride to you and the GLC administration.” Hence, what was supposed to be a discussion on robust institutional culture and free speech has now prompted us at SpicyIP to briefly comment on whether there are any potential trademark concerns!
As our readers may know, a passing off action (recognized under Section 27(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999) targets attempts to obtain economic benefit from the reputation and goodwill built by another in a particular trade/business. In S. Syed Mohideen v P. Sulochana Bai, the Supreme Court held that the ingredients of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage (the “classical trinity” test in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v Borden Inc.) must be established to successfully claim passing off. While GLC as an institute may be noted as possessing goodwill in providing legal education as the oldest law college in India (education is a service under Class 41), it is extremely difficult to establish that individuals behind the initiative “GLC Law and Lore” are misrepresenting the same as a formal initiative of the institute. Neither do the YouTube channel or other social media accounts of the initiative claim any official association with GLC, nor is such association a reasonable assumption for an ordinary viewer. In fact, the very first words of the channel description say “Law and Lore is a student-led initiative…”.
And on the question of damage – really? I echo the sentiment voiced by (Retd.) Justice Patel here:
“…several senior counsel and past judges — myself included — have participated on their platform, to no ill effect to GLC. Quite the reverse in fact, for a fair part of those conversations was about our cherished years at GLC.”
How is there any actual injury to GLC’s goodwill or services?
Hence, when Dr. Vaidya terms the public notice an endeavour to “protect the name, reputation, and integrity” of GLC, Mumbai, one is left puzzled. It is hard to imagine discussions on litigation practice, career trajectories at corporate law firms or otherwise, as challenging any of these values for the institution. If anything, this has brought “GLC Law and Lore” to the attention of a larger audience.
It would be a surprise if the public notice is not withdrawn now!
The author thanks Swaraj for his comments.