Sebile Educations Private Limited v. Nikita Dubey Rai

C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023

Sebile Educations Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Nikita Dubey Rai and others for infringing its registered trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINS', and violating copyright laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'LEARNING EINSTEINS' in educational services. However, despite previous court directions to file proof affidavits and documents before the Master, the plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit for default.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.324 of 2023
Judge(s)
P.Velmurugan

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sebile Educations Private Limited vs Nikita Dubey Rai is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPDPTA/8/2025

Cyril Bath CompanyvsController Of Patents And Designs And Ors

Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.

patent(T) CMA (TM) No.196 of 2023

Mohanlal U.Jain Trading As M/s.Master MarketingvsM/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Mohanlal U.Jain, setting aside the Trademark Registry's decision to abandon his applications for 'Rallison APPLIANCES.' The core issue was whether the opposition notice served by M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had been properly served on the appellant as required under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court found that despite evidence of communication from the respondent, there was no proof presented by the Registry confirming service upon the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Registry was directed to grant a fresh opportunity for the matter.

patentC.S. (Comm. Div) No.73 of 2023

Sfp Sons India Private LimitedvsMr. Jitender Singh

The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by Sfp Sons India Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'JASS' by Mr. Jitender Singh, trading as M/s. Sri Vidhiya Agencies. The court found that the defendant was liable for infringing the plaintiff's rights through the use of deceptively similar marks like 'JAAS'. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further misuse and directed the payment of suit costs to the plaintiff.

patentCS(COMM) 466/2024

Singh And Singh Law Firm LlpvsSingh And Singh Attorneys

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs (Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP) against the Defendants (Singh And Singh Attorneys). The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and goodwill associated with the name 'Singh & Singh'. Despite modifications to the scope of relief sought, the court affirmed the right of the Plaintiffs to protect their brand identity, emphasizing the international reputation and established goodwill of the law firm.

patentCS(COMM) 1147/2024, I.A. 27483/2025 & I.A. 27513-27514/2025

Rajat Sharma & Anr.vsTamara Doc & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a suit concerning alleged infringement of personality and publicity rights, registered trademarks, and copyright. The court directed the plaintiff to serve advanced copies of their pending applications on the counsel representing proposed defendant no. 17 (Google LLC). This procedural step moves the litigation forward as the court prepares for further hearings regarding the injunction and impleadment requests.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call