Introduction:The dispute in Lake Mount Educational Society & Anr. vs. Global Educational Trust arose from an allegation of trademark infringement and passing off in the field of education services. The plaintiff, Global Educational Trust, claimed that the defendants’ use of the trade name “Lake Mount Global Public School” infringed its registered trademark “Global Public School” and was intended to mislead the public into believing an association with the plaintiff. The case involved interpretation and application of key provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially relating to deceptive similarity, secondary meaning, and the rights of a registered trademark holder. The High Court of Kerala addressed the balance between generic use of common words and the proprietary rights conferred by registration and long-term usage.
Factual Background:The plaintiff, Global Educational Trust, had established and been operating a school named “Global Public School” in Thiruvaniyoor, Ernakulam since 2006. The name was registered under Trademark No. 1476968 in Class 41 as of 07.08.2006. The school was affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education and had built a reputed identity in the education sector. In 2018, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were operating an institution under the name “Lake Mount Global Public School” in the same district, allegedly causing confusion among the public regarding the origin or affiliation of the school. The plaintiff claimed that this act amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
Procedural Background:The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement and obtained a temporary injunction from the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam in I.A. No. 5581 of 2018 in O.S. No. 34 of 2018. The injunction restrained the defendants from using the name “Global Public School” as part of their institutional identity. The defendants, Lake Mount Educational Society and its affiliated school, challenged this order by filing an appeal under FAO No. 221 of 2018 before the High Court of Kerala. The matter was heard and decided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim.
Legal Issue:The central legal issue was whether the use of the name “Lake Mount Global Public School” by the defendants amounted to infringement of the registered trademark “Global Public School” and whether such use was likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public, thereby justifying the grant of temporary injunction.
Discussion on Judgments:The appellants relied heavily on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC 142, wherein the Court refused to grant injunction as the term “Skyline” was found to lack distinctiveness, being used widely across institutions. They argued that “Global”, “Public”, and “School” were generic terms and not capable of exclusive appropriation.
The respondents cited a series of decisions that emphasized the importance of prior use, secondary meaning, and the rights granted to the registered proprietor of a trademark. In Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 65, the Supreme Court held that even in cases of innocent adoption, where confusion or deception is likely, an injunction should be granted. The Court further held that confusion in business could justify a restraint order.
In Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 726, the Supreme Court discussed the principles of trademark infringement and laid down that registration gives exclusive rights to the proprietor and that delay in bringing action is not fatal if infringement is established.
Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food and Beverages (P) Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 257 was cited to highlight that a descriptive mark can acquire protection when it obtains secondary meaning associated with the proprietor.
The respondents also relied on Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 90, which clarified that injunction should follow in cases of trademark infringement and mere delay in filing suit is not sufficient to defeat such relief.
Additionally, Wockhardt Ltd. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2018) 18 SCC 346, and Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai & Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 1, were cited to reiterate that when a registered trademark is involved and confusion is likely, protection must be extended.
Among High Court precedents, the Court referred to National Garments v. National Apparels, 1989 (1) KLT 855, Jaleel Associates v. Hotel Sagar, 2005 (1) KLT 757, and Hotel Seagull v. Seagulls Catch Restaurant Pvt. Ltd., 2015 KHC 7059. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Ors., MANU/DE/3797/2025, was cited to support the argument that even partial use of a registered mark within a larger name can constitute infringement when it causes confusion.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The High Court held that while the terms “Global”, “Public”, and “School” might individually be generic, their use in combination had acquired distinctiveness through long-term use by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s school had earned a strong reputation under the registered name “Global Public School”. The Court held that even where words are generic, their combination can develop a secondary meaning if consistently used and associated with a particular source. The evidence of public confusion and the geographic proximity of the institutions (within 10 km) strengthened the inference of likely deception.
The Court distinguished Skyline Education on facts, stating that it involved widespread use of a common term across multiple institutions, unlike the present case where a distinctive combination had been appropriated by the plaintiff. The Court also emphasized that actual intent to deceive is not necessary, and it is sufficient if the similarity causes likely confusion.
Addressing the argument of delay, the Court followed Ramdev Food Products and Midas Hygiene to hold that in trademark infringement cases, delay by itself does not bar relief if infringement is proved. The Court concluded that the defendants’ use of the impugned name infringed upon the plaintiff’s trademark and was intended to cause confusion in the minds of parents and students.
Final Decision:The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. The defendants were restrained from using the trade name “Global Public School” or any deceptively similar variant as part of their institutional name. The Court upheld the plaintiff’s exclusive rights over the registered trademark and found a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.
Law Settled in This Case:This case reaffirms that even generic words, when used in combination and consistently associated with a specific entity, can acquire secondary meaning and distinctiveness deserving of trademark protection. It affirms the principle that a registered trademark holder is entitled to protection from any unauthorized usage that causes likely confusion, even if the infringing entity has been operating for some years. The judgment also underscores that delay in bringing a suit does not bar the grant of injunction in clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off.
Case Title: Lake Mount Educational Society & Anr. vs. Global Educational Trust:Date of Order: 24th June, 2025:Case Number: FAO No. 221 of 2018:Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:45059:Name of Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam:Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment