Delhi District Court
Ms S. K. Educations Pvt. Ltd vs Chintels School And Anr on 16 July, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS NEELAM SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-06, CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 35/2025
In the matter of:
M/s S.K. Educations Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representatives,
Mrs. Kusum Lata,
At:-9988/B-1, Sarai Rohilla,
New Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110005.
........ Plaintiff
Versus
1. Chintels School,
Through Mr. A Kumar (as known as Anil Kumar Yadav),
S/o Sh. Ram Ajor Yadav,
Incharge/Owner/Manager.
At- Dadabari, Teen-Batti Chauraha,
Kota, Rajasthan-324009.
2. Mr. A. Kumar,
Mr. A. Kumar, (as known as) Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav,
Incharge/Owner/Manager.
Chintels School,
At:- 155-A, Shreenath Puram,
Kota, Rajasthan-324010.
......Defendants
Date of institution of suit : 10.01.2025
Judgment reserved on : 16.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.07.2025
Final Decision : Decreed
CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 1 of 21
:2:
JUDGMENT (ex-parte)
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction thereby restraining the defendants from infringing and passing off the registered trademark and copyright of the plaintiff alongwith damages and rendition of accounts.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that M/s S.K. Educations (plaintiff), is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 9988/B-1, Sarai Rohilla, New Rohtak Road, Delhi-110005. It is submitted that the plaintiff, in the year 2002-03, developed and introduced the brand name 'BACHPAN' and 'BACHPAN Play School' for its play school. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a market leader in eduction sector particularly in the field of early childhood and development of children under the age of six years. It is submitted that the plaintiff provides various services and material such as educational activity manuals, books, uniform, techniques and managerial know-how and other support system such as teacher training etc. under the registered mark 'BACHPAN'. It is further submitted that the plaintiff under its brand name has developed various techniques, activities, manuals, workbook, uniform and other methods to make children apply their mental and physical skills. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has developed a technical method for learning of the children. It is further submitted that the plaintiff CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 2 of 21 :3: as a Franchiser offers franchisee for running its play schools under its registered mark to those who represent plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff has established its good will for providing quality and unique methodology for the play schools. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's marks are registered with the Registrar of Trademark under classes 41, 16, 20 and 42. (The details of these trademarks have been mentioned in para nos.12 and 13 of the plaint).
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 is a play school, formerly know as 'Bachpan Play School, Kota', whereas defendant no.2 is the incharge/owner of the school. It is submitted that defendant no.2- Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav approached the plaintiff in the year 2018 for establishing and operating a play school under the plaintiff's trademarks at Kota, Rajasthan. It is submitted that a Memo of Understanding dated 01.05.2018 has been executed between the parties for a period of five years, whereby defendant no.2 was permitted to run franchisee play school using the registered trademark of the plaintiff on the terms and conditions as specified in MoU Agreement. (It has been mentioned in para no.20 of the plaint that the original Agreement has been lost by the plaintiff). It is submitted that after setting up the school, defendant no.2 started defaulting in the payments and further defendant no.2 ceased operations of running franchisee school at the location and subsequently, shut down the school without informing the plaintiff. It is further submitted that this act of the defendant CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 3 of 21 :4: no.2 resulted in loss to the reputation of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff had sent a number of correspondence to the defendants in this regard and thereafter, the plaintiff was forced to terminate the Franchise Agreement/MoU on 30.03.2021 on the ground of non-payment of dues and breach of Agreement. It is further submitted that thereafter in the month of November, 2021, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.2 is running the school by the name of 'Chintel's School powered by Bachpan'. It is submitted that defendant no.2 never sought for any permission from the plaintiff to run this school and, accordingly, has infringed the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has written a number of e-mails to the defendants for clearing the outstanding amount, but the defendants have never paid any heed. It is further submitted that even after the termination of the MoU, plaintiff reached out to the defendants vide several letters for payment of royalty charges and the defendants were also reminded to discharge the obligation to pay the outstanding dues amounting to Rs.43,123/-. It is further submitted that due to these illegal and unauthorized acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has also issued a legal notice dated 01.03.2022 to the defendants. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has undertaken a random social media search in November, 2023 whereby it came to know that the children in defendants' play school were wearing the uniform having exactly the same colour combination and design alongwith plaintiff's logo on it. It is submitted that the actions of the defendants have caused severe CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 4 of 21 :5: harassment to the plaintiff both mentally and financially. Accordingly, the defendants are liable to pay damages amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and, accordingly, on the basis of registered trademark of the plaintiff, the defendants be restrained from using the trademark of the plaintiff and hence, the present suit.
4. Summons of the suit were issued upon the defendants and both the defendants stood served through Whatsapp on 15.04.2025. It has already been recorded by Ld. Predecessor of this Court in order dated 22.04.2025 that both the defendants stood served through Whatsapp on mobile no. 8317015510. Despite due service, none has appeared on behalf of the defendants and no Written Statement has been filed on behalf of defendants. Vide order dated 22.05.2025 of Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
5. Vide order dated 22.05.2025, Ld. Predecessor of this Court has framed the following issues for just adjudication of the case:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is the registered owner of the marks 'BACHPAN' / 'BACHPAN Play School"? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is owner copyright qua the mark 'BACHPAN' / 'BACHPAN Play School"? OPP iii. Whether the defendant has entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 24.06.2018 with the plaintiff for running a school under the franchise? OPP CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 5 of 21 :6: iv. Whether the defendant has violated the Intellectual Property Rights of the plaintiff by means of setting up an entirely new and unauthorized school, using the marks of the plaintiff? OPP.
v. Whether the defendant wrongly continued to use the registered mark of the plaintiff despite termination of Franchise Agreement and has infringed the mark in question? OPP vi. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPP vii. Whether the plaintiff has complied with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP viii. Relief.
6. In order to substantiate its case, plaintiff has examined Ms. Kusum Lata as PW-1 who led her ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit- Ex.PW-1/1. The witness has relied upon the following documents:-
a) Copy of the incorporation certificates of M/S S. K Educations Pvt. Ltd. as Ex-PW-1/A (OSR) (Colly).
b) Copy of Board Resolution Dated 26.04.2019 is attached and exhibited herein as Ex-PW-1/B (OSR).
c) Copy of Awards and Certification of Appreciation as Ex-PW-1/C (OSR) (Colly).
d) Copy of Relevant Trademark Certificates / Legal Proceeding Certificates as Ex-PW-1/D (OSR) (Colly).
e) Copy of Various Copyright Certificates as EX-PW-1/E (Colly).
f) Certified copy of the document indicating Expenses Incurred by the Plaintiff as Ex-PW-1/F (OSR).CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 6 of 21 :7:
g) List of Orders/ Judgments Passed in Favour of the Plaintiff as Ex-PW-1/G (Colly).
h) Screenshots of Social Media Handles of the Plaintiff as Ex-PW-1/H (Colly).
i) Copy of Memorandum of Understanding Dated 01.05.2018 as Ex-PW-1/I (OSR).
j) Copy of the Non-Cognizable Report dated 31.10.2023 as Ex-PW-1/J.
k) Copy of the E-Mail Dated 06.11.2020 as Ex-PW-1/K.
1) Copy of the E-Mails Dated 14.12.2020 as Ex-PW-1/L (colly).
m) Copy of the Ledger Accounts Maintained by Plaintiff Company for the F.Y (2018-2024) as Ex-PW-1/ M (Colly).
n) Office copy of the Letters dated 12.04.2021, 27.04.2021, 12.05.2021, 19.05.2021, 08.06.2021, 06.07.2021, 08.10.2021 sent to the Defendant alongwith Courier receipts as Ex-PW-1/N (Colly).
o) Copy of the Legal Notice Dated 01.03.2022 alongwith postal receipts as Ex-PW-1/O (colly).
p) Screenshot of the Infringement Photograph taken as Ex-PW-1/P (Colly).
q) Screenshot of the Social Media Handle of Defendant's Instagram along with Bag as Ex-PW-1/ Q (Colly).
r) Copy of the State-Wise List of the Total Franchisee Play Schools of the Plaintiff across India as Ex-PW-1/R.
s) Copy of the Order of the Hon'ble Court Dated 29.04.2023 as Ex-PW-1/S.
t) True Copy of the Non-Starter Report as Ex-PW-1/T. u) Declaration/Affidavit on Oath Under Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 Read with Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as Ex-PW-1/U. CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 7 of 21 :8:
10. Final arguments heard. On the basis of arguments rendered by counsel for plaintiff, evidence of the plaintiff and the documents filed in support of its case, my issue wise findings are as under:-
vi. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPP
11. The onus to prove this issue rests upon the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that this court possesses the appropriate territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit, citing its registered office and place of work at 9988/B-1, Sarai Rohilla, New Rohtak Road, Delhi-110005. In intellectual property disputes, especially those involving trademark and copyright infringement, Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, provide for an expanded forum conveniens. As per these provisions, a suit can be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the plaintiff actually and voluntarily carries on business, or personally works for gain.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 161, while interpreting these provisions, clarified that the plaintiff's place of business or working for gain is a valid ground for jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the object of these provisions is to enable the plaintiff to institute a suit at a place where it can conveniently pursue the litigation.
CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 8 of 21 :9:13. In the present case, the plaintiff, M/s S.K. Educations, has explicitly stated that its registered office is located at 9988/B-1, Sarai Rohilla, New Rohtak Road, Delhi-110005. This fact is uncontroverted, as the defendants were proceeded ex-parte, having failed to appear or file a written statement despite due service. The unrebutted testimony of PW-1 Ms. Kusum Lata and the documentary evidence, including the copy of the incorporation certificate of M/s S.K. Educations Pvt. Ltd. (Ex- PW-1/A), further substantiate the plaintiff's claim regarding its office in Delhi.
14. Given that the plaintiff carries on business and has its registered office within the territorial limits of this Court, as per the mandate of Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, read in conjunction with the principles laid down in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr. (Supra), this Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Therefore, issue no. vi is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
vii. Whether the plaintiff has complied with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act? OPP
15. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes before a suit can be filed, unless urgent interim relief is needed. This means parties must attempt to resolve the dispute through CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 9 of 21 : 10 : mediation before approaching a court. The mediation process, as per the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018, should be completed within three months, with a possible extension of two months with mutual consent. Settlements reached through this process are legally binding and have the effect of an arbitral award.
16. In the present case, plaintiff has filed and proved on record the copy of Non-Starter Report dated 28.07.2021 (Ex.PW1/T) issued by Central District Legal Services Authority. It is mentioned in the report that notices were issued to the opposite party on the addresses given by the complainant for abovementioned dates for obtaining consent to participate in mediation process. Ms. Aashna Gupta and Sh. Rohit Vashisth, Counsels for plaintiff were present on 19/07/2023. The opposite party did not turn up. Ms. Aashna, Counsel for plaintiff was present on 24/08/2023. The opposite party did not turn up. Therefore, the present matter hereby stands as 'Non-Starter'. Accordingly, on the basis of above discussion, I am of this considered opinion that plaintiff has duly complied with the provisions Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
i. Whether the plaintiff is the registered owner of the marks 'BACHPAN' / 'BACHPAN Play School? OPP
17. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that M/s S.K. Educations developed and introduced the brand name 'BACHPAN' and 'BACHPAN Play School' for its play schools CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 10 of 21 : 11 : back in 2002-03. Plaintiff claims to be a market leader in early childhood education.
18. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that their marks are registered with the Registrar of Trademarks under classes 41, 16, 20, and 42. Crucially, the plaintiff has produced "Copy of Relevant Trademark Certificates / Legal Proceeding Certificates as Ex-PW-1/D(OSR)(Colly)" during evidence. In India, trademark registration provides a legal presumption of ownership and an exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. The Trademarks Act, 1999, specifically Section 28, grants the registered proprietor of a trademark the exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trademark. The production of the trademark registration certificates (Ex-PW-1/D) by the plaintiff stands as strong prima facie evidence of their ownership.
19. Furthermore, the defendants, despite being duly served with summons, failed to appear or file a written statement, leading to them being proceeded ex-parte. This means that the defendants have not contested or challenged the plaintiff's assertion of trademark ownership. The unrefuted evidence presented by the plaintiff's witness, Ms. Kusum Lata (PW-1), in her affidavit Ex.PW-1/1, along with the exhibited trademark certificates, strongly supports the plaintiff's claim.
CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 11 of 21 : 12 :20. Therefore, based on the clear statement of registration and the un-rebutted documentary evidence in the form of trademark certificates, it is established that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the marks 'BACHPAN' and 'BACHPAN Play School'. Accordingly, Issue (i) is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff is the owner of copyright qua the mark 'BACHPAN' / 'BACHPAN Play School'? OPP
21. It is the case of the plaintiff that they developed various techniques, activities, manuals, workbooks, uniforms, and other methods for children's learning under their brand name 'BACHPAN'. These materials and methods, by their very nature, can be subject to copyright protection as original literary, artistic, or dramatic works. In support of its case, the plaintiff has relied upon "Copy of Various Copyright Certificates as EX-PW-1/E (Colly)". The Copyright Act, 1957, protects original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. While registration of copyright is not mandatory for copyright to subsist (as copyright automatically subsists upon creation of an original work), registration serves as prima facie evidence in a court of law. Section 48 of the Copyright Act, 1957, states that the Register of Copyrights shall be prima facie evidence of the particulars entered therein.
CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 12 of 21 : 13 :22. The plaintiff's submission of copyright certificates (Ex- PW-1/E) demonstrates their claim of ownership over the copyrighted materials associated with 'BACHPAN' and 'BACHPAN Play School'. Similar to the trademark issue, the defendants' absence and failure to contest the suit means that the evidence presented by the plaintiff remains unchallenged. The testimony of PW-1, Ms. Kusum Lata, further supports the plaintiff's assertion of having developed original materials and methods, which fall under the purview of copyright.
23. Even if the "mark" itself (e.g., the stylized logo) is registered as a trademark, its artistic rendition or any specific design elements, as well as the educational content, manuals, or specific curriculum developed by the plaintiff, could be subject to copyright protection. The plaintiff's claim that they developed, "various techniques, activities, manuals, workbook, uniform and other methods" under the 'BACHPAN' brand strongly suggests the existence of original works subject to copyright. The submission of "Various Copyright Certificates" (Ex-PW-1/E) provides the necessary legal backing for this claim.
24. Therefore, based on the unchallenged evidence of the copyright certificates and the description of the unique materials developed by the plaintiff, it is established that the plaintiff is the owner of copyright in relation to the materials and artistic works associated with 'BACHPAN' and 'BACHPAN Play School'.
CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 13 of 21 : 14 :Accordingly, issue (ii) is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
iii. Whether the defendant has entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 24.06.2018 with the plaintiff for running a school under the franchise? OPP iv. Whether the defendant has violated the Intellectual Property Rights of the plaintiff by means of setting up an entirely new and unauthorized school, using the marks of the plaintiff? OPP.
v. Whether the defendant wrongly continued to use the registered mark of the plaintiff despite termination of Franchise Agreement and has infringed the mark in question? OPP
25. Issue Nos. (iii), (iv), and (v) are taken together as they are intrinsically connected. The establishment of a Franchise Agreement directly impacts whether subsequent actions constitute a violation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and infringement after termination. It is the case of the plaintiff that Defendant No. 2, Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, approached the plaintiff in 2018 to establish and operate a play school under the plaintiff's trademarks at Kota, Rajasthan. A Memo of Understanding (MoU) dated 01.05.2018 was executed between the parties for a period of five years, permitting Defendant No. 2 to run a franchise play school using the plaintiff's registered trademark, subject to specified terms and conditions. Although the original agreement is stated to have been lost, a Copy of 'Memorandum of Understanding' Dated 01.05.2018 as Ex-PW-1/I(OSR) has been placed on record. This document, exhibited and not challenged CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 14 of 21 : 15 : by the defendants, serves as strong evidence of the contractual relationship. Therefore, the existence of a Franchise Agreement is established.
26. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that Defendant No. 2 began defaulting on payments and eventually shut down the franchised school without informing the plaintiff. This led to the plaintiff terminating the Franchise Agreement/MoU on 30.03.2021, due to non-payment of dues and breach of the agreement. The plaintiff sent various correspondence to the defendants, including letters dated 12.04.2021, 27.04.2021, 12.05.2021, 19.05.2021, 08.06.2021, 06.07.2021, 08.10.2021 along with courier receipts (Ex-PW-1/N), and also e-mails dated 06.11.2020 (Ex-PW-1/K) and 14.12.2020 (Ex-PW-1/L), requesting payment and addressing the breach. A legal notice dated 01.03.2022 was also sent along with postal receipts (Ex- PW-1/O). These documents clearly demonstrate the communication regarding default, breach, and eventual termination of the agreement.
27. It is submitted that the plaintiff discovered in November 2021 that Defendant No. 2 was running a school by the name of 'Chintel's School powered by Bachpan' without any permission from the plaintiff. This directly indicates unauthorized use of the plaintiff's mark. Furthermore, a social media search in November 2023 revealed that children in the defendants' play school were wearing uniforms with the exact same color combination, design, CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 15 of 21 : 16 : and the plaintiff's logo. This is evidenced by the "Screenshot of the Infringement Photograph taken as Ex-PW-1/P (Colly)" and "Screenshot of the Social Media Handle of Defendant's Instagram along with Bag as Ex-PW-1/Q (Colly)".
28. This continued and unauthorized use of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BACHPAN' and its associated brand elements, including the logo and uniform design, after the termination of the Franchise Agreement, unequivocally, constitutes trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Section 29(4) of the Act, in particular, deals with infringement of a registered trademark where the impugned mark is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered and where the registered trademark has a reputation in India and the use of the impugned mark, without due cause, takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark. In this case, the use is for similar services (play school), directly leveraging the reputation of 'BACHPAN'.
29. The act of running 'Chintel's School powered by Bachpan' without authorization, especially after the termination of the franchise agreement, demonstrates a clear violation of the plaintiff's Intellectual Property Rights. The inclusion of "powered by Bachpan" directly suggests an association or endorsement by the plaintiff's well-established brand, thereby taking unfair CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 16 of 21 : 17 : advantage of its reputation and goodwill. This amounts to both infringement and passing off, as the defendants are misrepresenting their services as being connected with or endorsed by the plaintiff.
30. The defendants, having been proceeded ex-parte, have not rebutted any of these claims or the documentary evidence. The un-rebutted testimony of PW-1, Ms. Kusum Lata, further solidifies the plaintiff's contentions regarding the execution of the MoU, the breach, termination, and subsequent unauthorized use and infringement. Therefore, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the plaintiff's claims that:
(a) The defendants indeed entered into a Franchise Agreement (MoU) with the plaintiff.
(b) The defendants violated the plaintiff's Intellectual Property Rights by setting up an unauthorized school using the plaintiff's marks.
(c) The defendants wrongly continued to use the plaintiff's registered mark despite the termination of the Franchise Agreement, thereby infringing the mark.
Accordingly, issue nos. (iii), (iv), and (v) are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 17 of 21 : 18 :Relief
31. The plaintiff has claimed arrears of royalty amounting to Rs. 43,123/- for the period from November 2019 up until the termination of the Franchise Agreement on 30.03.2021. This claim is supported by the plaintiff's ledger accounts for F.Y. 2018-2024 (Ex-PW-1/M Colly) and the various correspondences (Ex-PW-1/K, Ex-PW-1/L, Ex-PW-1/N, Ex-PW-1/O) demanding these dues. Given that the Franchise Agreement, under which these royalties were payable, has been established and its breach by non-payment of dues led to its termination, the plaintiff is entitled to recover these outstanding amounts. The plaintiff has sought interest at 18% per annum on this amount. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant interest at a more reasonable rate.
32. Therefore, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for an amount of Rs. 43,123/- (Rupees Forty-Three Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Three Only), along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its actual realization.
33. The plaintiff has claimed damages amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of severe harassment, both mental and financial, due to the illegal and unauthorized acts of the CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 18 of 21 : 19 : defendants. While the unauthorized use and infringement of intellectual property rights can cause significant harm to a brand's reputation and financial standing, the assessment of damages requires specific evidence to substantiate the quantum of loss suffered. In the present case, the plaintiff has not led any specific evidence (such as expert reports, loss of profit calculations, or detailed accounts of reputational harm with monetary quantification) to prove the actual extent of damages suffered in monetary terms. Mere assertions of mental and financial harassment, without supporting evidence for quantification, are insufficient to grant a specific sum as damages. Therefore, no amount is awarded as damages.
34. In view of the established infringement and passing off by the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to protect its registered trademarks and copyrights. The continued unauthorized use of the marks 'BACHPAN' and 'BACHPAN Play School' and deceptively similar variations, as well as the use of copyrighted material, by the defendants, is detrimental to the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff as follows:
(i) An order and decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed, thereby restraining the Defendants, their heirs, officers, servants, employees, staff, agents, representatives, assignees or any other associated person(s), as the case may be, from running or administering any play school, directly or indirectly, under the CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 19 of 21 : 20 : Trade Mark "Bachpan" and "Bachpan Play School" and/or any other deceptively similar Trademark, brand name, logo, design etc. whatsoever that may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Registered Marks, and restraining them all from doing any other thing amounting to infringement and passing off of the Registered Marks and Copyright of the Plaintiff.
(ii) A decree of mandatory injunction is hereby passed, thereby directing the Defendants, their officers, servants, employees, staff and agents, representatives, assignees, as the case may be, for delivery up of all the books, stationary, furniture, admission kits, bill books, printed materials, dresses etc. bearing the Plaintiff's copyright and trademark "Bachpan" and "Bachpan a Play School" and any other deceptively similar mark, to the Plaintiff or its duly authorized representative for destruction / erasure.
(iii) A decree of rendition of accounts is hereby passed, thereby directing the Defendant(s), their officers, servants, employees, staff and agents, representatives, assignees, as the case may be, to provide details of the number of students enrolled and the profits earned therewith during the period of unauthorized operation of 'Chintel's School powered by Bachpan' from November 2021 onwards until the date of this judgment.CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 20 of 21 : 21 :
35. Decree sheet be drawn and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced & dictated Digitally signed
by NEELAM
in the open Court on this NEELAM SINGH
Date:
16th day of July, 2025 SINGH 2025.07.18
15:38:47
+0530
(NEELAM SINGH)
District Judge
(Commercial Court-06)
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (Comm) No.35/2025 M/s S.K. Educations Vs. Chintel School & Anr. Page 21 of 21