Short Summary
Zee Learn Limited filed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust for continued use of its registered trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL' and proprietary MLZS Program after termination of their licensing agreements. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner regarding the termination and granted partial relief, restraining the Respondent from using the trademarks and proprietary programme and directing disclosure of financial records. However, the Court rejected prayers for revival of the contractual relationship, a bank guarantee of Rs.48,39,440.76/-, and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Detailed Summary
Zee Learn Limited (Petitioner) has been operating in the education sector in India since 1994 and runs the 'Mount Litera Zee School' (MLZS) network of CBSE schools. The Petitioner developed its own 'MLZS Program' or 'Zee School Program' aligned with NCERT and CBSE curriculum guidelines, along with study material known as 'Litera Gear' consisting of textbooks, worksheets, equipment, uniforms, and kits. The Petitioner is the registered owner of the trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL', 'MOUNT LITERA', and 'MLZS' in Classes 9, 16, 28, and 41 in relation to education services.
The Respondent, Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust, entered into multiple agreements with the Petitioner from 2014 onwards, including the Intellectual Property Agreement dated 23rd November 2016 (IP Agreement), the Academic Alliance Agreement dated 1st June 2017 (Academic Agreement), and the Settlement Agreement dated 21st August 2024. Under the IP Agreement, the Respondent was granted a limited licence to use the trademarks for five years, with Clause 7.5 requiring cessation of all use of Intellectual Properties within seven days of termination. The Academic Agreement permitted the Respondent to implement the MLZS Program at its school in Dehradun, with Clause 7.1 requiring payment of an alliance fee equal to 10% of the school's Net Collections.
The Petitioner alleged that in March 2026, the Respondent deliberately committed breaches of the contract, leading to termination of the agreements. Despite termination, the Respondent continued to use the Petitioner's trademarks, brand, and proprietary programme. The Petitioner filed a Section 9 petition seeking: (a) restraint from using the trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL' and the proprietary programme; (b) discovery of documents and financial records; (c) direction to procure Litera Gear from the Petitioner and pay Alliance Fees; (d) a Bank Guarantee of Rs.48,39,440.76/-; and (e) in the alternative, appointment of a Court Receiver to collect school fees.
The Respondent contested the Petition, arguing that the Petitioner had not made out a prima facie case, that the agreements were void under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and that the Petitioner had waived its rights by accepting late payments. The Respondent also argued that the State of Uttarakhand's directive dated 27th June 2013 required schools to use NCERT/SCERT books, making the Litera Gear non-compliant.
The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner regarding the IP Agreement and its termination. It held that the State directive did not prohibit use of additional textbooks and worksheets, and that the Litera Gear complied with the directive by including NCERT textbooks. The Court noted that the IP Agreement contained a clear termination clause and that the Respondent had not made out a case of fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion to void the agreement under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act.
The Court granted partial relief by: (i) restraining the Respondent from using the trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL' and 'MLZS' and the proprietary programme; (ii) directing removal of all Intellectual Properties from websites, collateral, and promotional materials within seven days; (iii) directing recall of all material from the distribution channel; (iv) directing the Respondent to display a prominent disclaimer on its website; (v) directing disclosure and preservation of financial records relating to use of the MLZS Program and trademarks after termination.
However, the Court rejected: (a) the prayer for revival of the contractual relationship, holding that the Court cannot, by an interim order, revive a terminated contract; (b) the prayer for a Bank Guarantee of Rs.48,39,440.76/-, leaving the entitlement and computation open for arbitral determination; and (c) the alternate prayer for appointment of a Court Receiver. The Court directed the Petitioner to commence arbitral proceedings within two months and clarified that all findings were prima facie observations for the purpose of the Section 9 petition only, with all disputes to be decided by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Zee Learn Limited vs Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd.vsOm Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Ms Pas AgrovsM/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private LimitedvsInox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private LimitedvsAlaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited)vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private LimitedvsMaha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
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.