Summary
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. (ACFE) sued Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur, a former Certified Fraud Examiner, and her coaching institute Kapp Edge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court. ACFE alleged that the defendants used the ACFE and CFE marks, an ACFE hyperlink, a misleading testimonial and repeated meta tags to sell exam-preparation courses. The Delhi High Court found that this use was prima facie not bona fide and caused confusion and false association. It granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants. The order shows how Indian courts treat professional certification marks and website meta tag use at the interim stage.
Background
A fraud-examiner credential recognised in more than 180 countries, with over 95,000 members, was allegedly being taught in Delhi under its own badge by a former member that the credentialing body had expelled. That tension sits at the centre of this ACFE trademark infringement dispute before the Delhi High Court.
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. (“ACFE”) is an anti-fraud organisation incorporated in 1989 that runs the Certified Fraud Examiner (“CFE”) certification. It claims use of “ACFE”, “ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FRAUD EXAMINERS”, “CFE” and associated logos in India since 1997, an India Chapter, and registrations for these marks. Its bye-laws allow only members in good standing to use the CFE designation, subject to licensing. Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur (“Ms. Kaur”) is the founder and director of Kapp Edge Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (“Kapp Edge”), a coaching institute, and was a CFE member until ACFE expelled her in June 2022.
ACFE says Ms. Kaur sought a licence for a Delhi Chapter in July 2014, and that it refused her in August 2014. It then found Kapp Edge offering a “KAPP Course” for the CFE exam and issued cease-and-desist notices in 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2022. Pre-litigation mediation filed in February 2023 closed in October 2023 without settlement. ACFE alleges that it detected fresh use of its marks in February 2026, commissioned an investigation in March 2026 and sent another notice in July 2026, which Ms. Kaur answered by email on 16 July 2026, denying any use of ACFE’s logo, seal or copyrighted material. ACFE then filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court, which granted interim relief on 29 September 2026.
Questions Before the Court
-
- Whether the use of “ACFE” and “CFE” by Kapp Edge and Ms. Kaur on the website onlineglobalcareer.com, including in a student testimonial, a hyperlink to acfe.com and meta tags, infringes ACFE’s registered marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”).
- Whether the use is bona fide, or is likely to cause confusion, deception and false association with ACFE among professionals and students.
- Whether ACFE established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury for an ex parte ad interim injunction, despite notices going back to 2015.
ACFE’s Arguments
-
- ACFE is the world’s largest anti-fraud organisation, with revenue rising from about USD 24.8 million in 2013 to about USD 41.3 million in 2025, and with sustained spending on promoting the “ACFE family of marks”.
- Section 5.02 of its bye-laws reserves the “Certified Fraud Examiner” and “CFE” designations to members in good standing, subject to licensing, so Ms. Kaur had no right to use them commercially after expulsion.
- The website onlineglobalcareer.com displays the CFE mark, links to acfe.com for study material and carries a student testimonial suggesting that the student received a CFE certificate from the organisation the student believed to be ACFE.
- Kapp Edge used “ACFE” and “CFE” in its website source code and meta tags more than 16 times, which shows deliberate trading on ACFE’s reputation.
- Repeated notices since 2015, an expulsion in 2022 and a failed mediation in 2023 show that the defendants persisted despite warnings.
Defendants’ Position
-
- The defendants did not appear at the ex parte stage. ACFE’s pleadings record that Ms. Kaur told ACFE in July 2026 that, to her understanding, the defendants’ material did not refer to ACFE’s logo, seal or copyrighted material.
- ACFE also pleads that, in 2015, the defendants denied copying but admitted using ACFE’s manual and seeking to become a licensee.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
A former member’s use is not automatically bona fide
The court noted that ACFE had placed on record its registered marks, its bye-law restricting the CFE designation to members in good standing, and a chronology of notices ending in the 2022 expulsion. The court observed that, on these documents, the defendants’ use of the impugned marks “ACFE” and “CFE” and of any identical or deceptively similar labels or logos was prima facie not bona fide. This reasoning treats a coaching institute’s connection with a certification body as relevant only if the use stays within the body’s licensing terms, a principle that matters for every ACFE trademark infringement dispute involving ex-members.
The court further observed that the history of unsuccessful licence requests and repeated warnings supported ACFE’s case that the defendants knew the marks belonged to ACFE and that ACFE had refused them permission to use those marks for courses.
Website content, the testimonial and meta tags as evidence of confusion
The court recorded the screenshots of the defendants’ website, which showed the CFE mark, a hyperlink to ACFE’s own website for study material and a student testimonial stating that the student had received a CFE certificate from ACFE, USA. The court also recorded ACFE’s submission that the marks appear in the website’s source code and meta tags more than 16 times. The court held that this use was causing confusion, deception and false association among professionals, stakeholders and consumers, who were likely to believe that Kapp Edge’s services originate from, are connected with or are endorsed by ACFE. The court reasoned that these features, taken together, supported a finding of ACFE trademark infringement at the interim stage.
Interim injunction standard
The court stated that ACFE had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured ACFE. The court found that ACFE would suffer irreparable loss and injury that money could not adequately compensate if the ex parte ad interim injunction were refused. The court opined that the injunction should therefore operate until the next date of hearing, with the defendants free to file a reply within four weeks. The order also notes that the Trade Marks Act protects registered marks against use that is identical or deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion or an association with the registered proprietor, which is the standard the court applied to the defendants’ use.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court held that:
-
- ACFE made out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favour an ex parte ad interim injunction.
- The defendants’ use of “ACFE”, “CFE” and identical or deceptively similar labels or logos is prima facie not bona fide and causes confusion, deception and false association.
- Until the next date of hearing, the defendants, their affiliates, agents and all persons acting on their behalf are restrained from using the impugned marks, or any mark identical or deceptively similar to ACFE’s marks, in a manner that amounts to infringement.
- The defendants must comply with the requirements for service within two weeks and file an affidavit of compliance within one week after that.
- The defendants may file a reply within four weeks, ACFE may file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter, and the matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 26 November 2026 and before the court on 27 January 2027.
Case Citation: M/s Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. v. Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur & Anr., CS(COMM) 1070/2026, High Court of Delhi, decided on 29 September 2026. Available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/193211083/.
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels