- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Restrains Former Playschool Franchise From Using ‘Bachpan’ as Trademark
Delhi High Court Restrains Former Playschool Franchise From Using ‘Bachpan’ as Trademark
The agreement between the entities ended in 2021 and was not renewed, as the defendant defaulted in paying the license fees
The Delhi High Court has restrained a former franchisee of the playschool ‘Bachpan’ from continuing to use its registered word and device marks.
The bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar stated, “The use by the defendants of the plaintiff’s mark for running playschools, holding itself out to be a franchisee of the plaintiff, clearly results in the likelihood of confusion and association as envisaged by Section 29(2)(c) and Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”
The provider of playschool services, ‘Bachpan’ filed the suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off. It averred that though a Franchisee Agreement was entered with defendant No.1, it ended in 2021. It was not renewed, as the defendant defaulted in payment of license fee.
It submitted that by dint of continuous use, ‘Bachpan’ marks had become source identifiers. The plaintiff added that the defendant had lost the right to use them and could not be allowed to pass themselves off as its franchise.
Meanwhile, despite being served, neither anyone appeared for the defendant, nor any written statement was filed.
The Court observed that the plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Thus, it restrained the defendant, till the disposal of the suit, from using ‘Bachpan’ mark, either as a word mark or as a logo identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered device marks, in the context of playschools or any other allied services.
The bench further directed the removal of any reference to the plaintiff’s ‘Bachpan’ mark from all physical and virtual sites on which the mark could be reflected in association with the defendants.
The plaintiff was represented by senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao and advocates Aarzoo Aneja, Udian Sharma, Vanshita Gupta, Meherunissa Jaitley, and Dushyant Kaul.