Lake Mount Educational Society & Anr. Vs. Global Educational Trust
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.
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.
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 in Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC 142, where the Court refused injunction as “Skyline” lacked distinctiveness.
They argued that “Global”, “Public”, and “School” were generic terms and not capable of exclusive appropriation.
The respondents cited decisions emphasizing prior use, secondary meaning, and the rights of registered proprietors:
- Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 65 – injunction should be granted even in cases of innocent adoption if confusion is likely.
- Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 726 – delay in bringing action is not fatal if infringement is proved.
- Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food and Beverages (P) Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 257 – descriptive marks can acquire protection through secondary meaning.
- Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 90 – injunction should follow in clear cases of trademark infringement.
- Wockhardt Ltd. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2018) 18 SCC 346
- Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai & Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 1
High Court precedents included:
- National Garments v. National Apparels, 1989 (1) KLT 855
- Jaleel Associates v. Hotel Sagar, 2005 (1) KLT 757
- Hotel Seagull v. Seagulls Catch Restaurant Pvt. Ltd., 2015 KHC 7059
- Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Ors., MANU/DE/3797/2025
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The High Court held that while the terms “Global”, “Public”, and “School” might be generic individually, their combination had acquired distinctiveness through long-term use by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s school had earned a strong reputation under the name “Global Public School”.
Even generic terms can develop secondary meaning when consistently used and associated with a particular source. Public confusion and geographic proximity (within 10 km) strengthened the inference of likely deception.
The Court distinguished Skyline Education on facts. It emphasized that actual intent to deceive is not necessary – likely confusion suffices.
On the argument of delay, the Court followed Ramdev Food Products and Midas Hygiene to hold that delay does not defeat relief in proven cases of infringement.
The Court concluded that the defendants’ use of the impugned name infringed the plaintiff’s trademark and was intended to cause confusion among parents and students.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court’s temporary injunction. The defendants were restrained from using the trade name “Global Public School” or any deceptively similar variant. The Court upheld the plaintiff’s exclusive rights over the registered trademark and found a strong prima facie case in their favour.
Law Settled in This Case
This case reaffirms that generic words used in combination can acquire distinctiveness and secondary meaning deserving of trademark protection. A registered trademark holder is entitled to protection from unauthorized usage that causes likely confusion, even if the infringer has been in operation for some years. Delay in bringing suit does not bar relief in clear cases of infringement and passing off.
Case Details
- 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
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
