IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
British School Society - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society - Respondent
CS (COMM) 509 of 2021 & I.As. 13426 of 2021, 17285 of 2021 and 3942 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark infringement and background case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding the trademark (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. analysis of historical background and trademark registrations (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. discussion on passing off principles and potential confusion (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. court's observations on misrepresentation and confusion (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. interim orders and injunction decisions (Para 37 , 38) |
| 7. final orders and conclusions from the court (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Background
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff- The British School Society for permanent injunction against infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up etc. The Plaintiff is an international, not-for-profit society located in New Delhi, India. The Plaintiff runs `The British School' which is located at the Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Defendant No.1 is a registered society with its principal place of business in Chandigarh. Defendant No.2 is stated to be a resident of Panchkula, Haryana.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is aggrieved on account of Defendants' unauthorised adoption and use of the mark `The British School', which is identical to Plaintiff's prior, distinctive and well-known mark. The mark `The British School' is stated to have been adopted by the Defendants in relation to identical services, i.e., educational services, for their four schools in Punjab & Haryana.
3. In the year 1963, a group of British parents, supported by the British High Commissioner to India, started `The British School' in Defence Colony, New Delhi with the aim of serving the diplomatic and expatriate community. `The British School' operates under the aegis of the Plaintiff society with the British High Commissioner to India as its President. The word mark `The British School' is registered in favour of the Plaintiff under trade mark number 2518107 claiming user since 1963 in respect of services related to education, schools, colleges, etc. However, a condition to the effect that the registration of the said mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of `The British School' is attached to the trade mark registration.
4. Sometime in June, 2020, the Plaintiff came across Defendants' unauthorised use of the mark `The British School'. It also came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that a website- www.thebritishschool.org was being run by the Defendants. Further enquiries revealed that on 29th May, 2015, an application bearing no. 2973716 for the registration of the following device mark had been filed by Defendant No.2 claiming user since 1st January, 2005-

5. The application of the Defendant No.2 has been objected under Sections 9(1)(a) and 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter "Act"). Another application bearing no. 4423768, dated 29th January, 2020 has been filed by Defendant No.1 for the registration of the following device mark, which has been opposed by the Plaintiff-

6. A cease-and-desist notice dated 19th June, 2020 was addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. Vide the said notice, the Plaintiff asked the Defendants to give up all use of the mark `the British School' and transfer the domain name www.thebritishschool.org in favour of the Plaintiff. A follow- up letter was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants dated 10th July, 2020 eliciting no reply from the Defendants. This led to filing of the present suit.
7. Vide order dated 12th October, 2021, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted against the Defendants from using the mark `The British School' or any other mark deceptively similar to Plaintiff's mark, till further orders. Thereafter, an application for the modification of the order dated 12th October, 2021 was filed by the Defendants. Vide order dated 22nd D
![]() | |||||
![]() | |||||


Trademark protections are fundamental in preventing unauthorized use that misleads and causes confusion in the marketplace, especially in education.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases of passing off, the prior use and goodwill of a mark, likelihood of confusion, and damage to goodwill are crucial factors in determining infringem....
Prior usage of a trademark establishes rights that outweigh later registration, particularly in the educational sector to prevent public confusion.
Court upheld the priority of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks, finding a prima facie case for infringement due to deceptive similarity, justifying an interim injunction against the Defendants.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks and the enforcement of injunctions to prevent trademark infringement.
Continuous violation of court orders and failure to comply with directives can lead to injunction and compensation.
A clear prima facie case of infringement, by the defendant, of the registered BAREFOOT COLLEGE word mark and the two feet logo of the plaintiff is made out. Where a case of infringement is thus found....
Trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act was established based on the likelihood of confusion among consumers due to the defendants' use of a mark similar to the plaintiff....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.