Bangalore District Court
Pearson India Education Services Pvt ... vs Global Shiksha India Pvt Ltd on 3 January, 2024
KABC010157612017
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for PRESENT: SRI PADMA PRASAD, B.A.(Law) LL.B.,
Judgme XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
nt in
Suits
R.P. 91 Dated this the 3 rd day of January 2024
PLAINTIFF: Specadel Technologies Private
Limited,
A company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office
at No.101, 1st Floor,
Money Centre, No.121,
Hosur Road,
Koramangala Industrial
Layout, Bangalore-560 095.
Represented by its authorised
signatory, Mrs. Janaki Valappil.
[By Sri P.D.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Global Shiksha India Pvt.
Ltd.,
Asra Point, No.882, 4th Floor,
80 Feet Road, 8th Block,
Opp. to NGV/Indoor Stadium,
Koramangala,
Bangalore-560 095.
[By Sri K.M., Advocate]
2 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
Date of institution of the : 29/06/2017
suit
Nature of the suit : For INJUNCTION (IPR)
Date of commencement of : 3/3/2022
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 03/01/2024
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
6 6 5
(PADMA PRASAD)
XVIII ACCJ: B'LURU.
This is a suit for permanent injunction.
2. The plaint case in nutshell is that, plaintiff
is doing the business of providing digital education
equipment and services, and during its course of the
business had appointed Suresh Babu as the Sales
Executive who worked in the plaintiff-company from
27th January 2015 to 2nd April 2016 and Wasim Raza
as Sales Associate and worked with the plaintiff for a
period from 19th December to 24th May 2016 and had
gained sufficient knowledge of business know-how,
clientele, market research and analysis, business and
3 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
trade strategy etc., The said two employees resigned
from the plaintiff-company on 25/4/2016 and
immediately joined its competitor i.e., the defendant.
Although the contract between the plaintiff and the
said two employees restrained them from joining any
competitor or in any manner directly or indirectly
competing or doing the business as that of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff did not initiate any action on
humanitarian grounds. The plaintiff reserves its rights
to initiate appropriate civil and / or criminal or both
proceedings against the said two employees.
Subsequent to the resignation and before the exit of
Wasim Raza on 1/5/2016, 15/5/2016 and
19/5/2016 accessed the official email ID
([email protected]) provided by the plaintiff to
Wasim Raza during the course of his employment to
sent all the confidential information to his personal
email id ([email protected]) and after joining
the defendant, the said two employees have been
approaching the employees of the plaintiff luring them
jobs with higher payment in the defendant company.
4 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
The plaintiff after gaining the knowledge of the acts of
Wasim Raza conducted an internal enquiry and found
that Wasim Raza and Suresh Babu had approached
two other employees, Jaishankar Nagraj and Abhishek
Bagade, and induced them to share the confidential
data of the plaintiff and in-lieu of the same jobs were
also offered. The said Jaishankar Nagraj and
Abhishek Bagade shared the confidential data of the
plaintiff with Suresh Babu. Abhishek Bagade had sent
the confidential information of the company from his
official email ID ([email protected]) to
his personal email ID ([email protected]).
During the course of the internal investigation, it also
came to the notice of the plaintiff that Jaishankar
Nagaraj had been sending the contact details of the
customers of the plaintiff to Suresh Babu over an
online messaging application called Google hangout
and at the instance of Suresh Babu apart from
sharing the customer details leads for sales were also
shared. The plaintiff operates under one of its brand
names "Edurite" amongst others and has also
5 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
obtained trade mark registration for the same. The
defendant and its employees have been approaching
the customers of the plaintiff as well as others in
order to sell their products which are similar to that of
the plaintiff based on the confidential information
shared by the ex-employees of the plaintiff. The
defendant and its employees have been using the
brand name "Edurite" belonging to the plaintiff by
misrepresenting that the defendant is a sister concern
of the plaintiff. A potential customer of the plaintiff
Mr.Paresh Nileshwar vide email dated 3/5/2017 has
reported one such incident stating that the defendant
had approached him under the guise of being a sister
concern of the plaintiff and also offered the products
similar to that of the plaintiff a very attractive price of
Rs.1,100/- for a educational DVD for class 12 of
Gujarat Education Board for the subjects
Physics,Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology and
whereas the actual price of the said DVD is much
higher. Further, the defendants have been
approaching various other customers and clients by
6 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
misrepresenting to be the sister concern of the
plaintiff in order to sell its own products and gain
undue advantage and cause huge monetary losses to
the plaintiff. The plaintiff has currently accessed the
losses incurred due to the illegal acts of the defendant
and its employees at about Rs.20,00,000/-. The major
chunk of the business of the plaintiff is through
online sales of the products. The defendant to take
advantage of the same has brought advertisement
space on search engine websites such as
www.google.com capturing the brand name "Edurite"
of the plaintiff and due to which the search results on
www.google.com displayed is the website of the
defendant and not of the plaintiff when a
user/customer applied a search command "Edurite
worksheet" the results displayed at no.1 is "Buy
Edurite Worksheets Online in India -GlobalShiksha".
The very act of the defendant approaching the
customers of the plaintiff and buy advertisement
spaces including the brand "Edurite" of the plaintiff so
as to lead the customers of the plaintiff to the website
7 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
of the defendant has led to causing hue financial
losses to the plaintiff. Accordingly prayed for the
reliefs claimed in the suit.
3. The defendant filed a written statement
wherein denied the entire plaint averments and
claimed that the defendant is a company incorporated
under Companies Act, carrying on the business of
providing services relating to education including
developing, operating and maintaining portals that
provide information and services relating to education;
providing a complete solution for all education related
searches and queries. The defendant is a platform
through which advertisers can advertise their
offerings online including portal owned, maintained
operated or managed by the defendant company. The
defendant is also carrying on the business of
wholesale trade in education CDs and books and
related material and other materials including
through online and offline mediums and providing
services incidental or complimentary thereto. The
plaintiff is the competitor of the defendant company.
8 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
The plaintiff filed this frivolous suit by creating
concocted documents and among other grounds
prayed for dismissal of suit.
4. On the basis of above pleading the court
framed following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that it is
the registered owner of trade mark
"Edurite"?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves
that the defendant has infringed its
trade mark'?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further proves
that the two employees of defendant
who were former employees of the
plaintiff are using the confidential
information of the plaintiff-company?
(4) Whether the defendant proves that it
is carrying on the business of the
educational services?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction as
prayed for?
(6) What order or decree?
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, examined
its Manager - Finance as PW.1 and got marked
documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the other hand,
9 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
Chief Executive Officer of the defendant company is
examined as DW.1 and got marked one document at
Ex.D1.
6. Heard the arguments and perused entire
records of the case. The learned advocate for the
defendant has filed written arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............In the Affirmative
Issue No. 2) ............In the Negative
Issue No. 3) ............In the Negative
Issue No. 4) ............In the Affirmative
Issue No. 5) ............In the Negative
Issue No. 6) ............As per final order; for
the following:
8. ISSUE NO.1 TO 5: The Issue No.1
regarding the proving of the plaintiff has the
registered owner of trade mark 'Edurite'; Issue No.2 is
regarding the infringement of said trade mark by
defendant; Issue No.3 is framed on the contention of
plaintiff that two former employees of the plaintiff
10 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
joined the defendant and they are using the
confidential information of the plaintiff; Issue No.4 is
framed on the contention of defendant that the
defendant is carrying on the business of educational
services; issue No.5 is regarding the plaintiff's
entitlement for the relief claimed in the suit. All these
issues are interlinked with each other and hence they are
taken up together.'
9. Before proceeding further in this case, it is
just and necessary to note the plaint prayers. The first
prayer in the plaint is to 'issue a permanent
injunction restraining the defendants, their
employees, representatives, servants, agents,
executives or anyone claiming through or under them
from using the brand name 'Edurite' in any manner'.
The 2nd prayer is to restrain the defendants or
anybody claiming under them from using the any and
all the confidential information including the
customer database on their contact details and sale
lead of the plaintiff, similarly the 3 rd prayer is to
restrain the defendants or anybody claiming under
11 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
them from approaching the customers of the plaintiff
for any business activities in relation to or similar to
that of the plaintiff.
10. If the aforesaid prayers are considered in its
entirety, then it is the claim of the plaintiff that the
plaintiff is the trade mark holder of 'Edurite' and that
has been infringed and passed off by the defendants.
Similarly, the defendants are using the confidential
information of plaintiff and approaching the
customers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the plaint
claimed that two of its former employees namely
Wasim Raza and Suresh Babu joined the defendant
and they are using the confidential information of
plaintiff and also approaching the customers of
plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff must prove that the
plaintiff is the trade mark holder of 'Edurite' and
that has been infringed by the defendants through the
aforesaid Wasim Raza and Suresh Babu by using the
confidential information they had, when they work
with the plaintiff. Per contra, the defendant totally
denied and disputed the plaint case. Hence, the
12 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
plaintiff has to prove the aforesaid facts in order to
accept the plaint case.
11. The plaintiff in support of its case examined
Manager-Finance of the plaintiff company namely
Veerndra Kumar as PW1 by filing evidence affidavit,
wherein he reiterated the plaint averments and also
produced the documents at Ex.P.1 to 6. Ex.P.1 is the
Board Resolution dated 08.02.2022 authorizing the
PW1 to give evidence and prosecute this case. Ex.P.2
is the Assignment deed dated 01.07.2017, Ex.P.3 is
the online printout of google search result, Ex.P.4 is
the E-mail dated 04.05.2017, Ex.P.5 is the certificate
u/sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of Ex.P.3
and 4. Ex.P.6 is the legal use certificate.
12. As per Ex.P.6-legal use certificate, Specadel
Technologies Private Limited has obtained the
registration of trade mark 'Edurite' and the trade
mark is registration date is 04.01.2016 and the
certificate is issued as on 16.04.2019 and the said
trade mark is valid up to 04.01.2026. As per the said
13 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
document the trade mark type is word and the word
mark is 'Edurite'. As per this document Specadel
Technologies Private Limited has obtained the
registration trade mark Edurite. It is the case of
plaintiff that it has obtained the Assignment of its
trade mark vide its Assignment deed dated
01.07.2017. The plaintiff has produced the
Assignment deed at Ex.P.2, as per the said document
the said Specadel Technologies Private Limited has
assigned the said trade mark to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff proved that it is the registered
owner of trade mark 'Edurite'.
13. In the case on hand, the plaintiff claimed
that its two previous employees namely Wasim Raza
and Suresh Babu has left the company and joined the
defendant and they had the access to the information
of the plaintiff, while they are working with the
plaintiff. The said two employees after resigning from
the plaintiff's company joined the defendant and used
the confidential information. The defendant in written
statement at para-5 pleaded ignorance about the
14 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
employment of Suresh Babu and Wasim Raza with the
plaintiff. Hence, the burden is on the plaintiff to show
that they are the previous employees or they are
earlier employed with the plaintiff before joining the
defendant. Of course the defendant has given evasive
evidence regarding the employment of Suresh Babu
and Wasim Raza with the defendant. It is true that the
defendants have not produced employment of roll of
its employees but that will not prove that Wasim Raza
and Suresh Babu are previous or earlier employees of
plaintiff and the production of employment roll by the
defendant, may only prove the fact that they are the
employees of defendant. Under the context/claim of
plaintiff in the suit it is for the plaintiff to prove that
the Suresh Babu and Wasim Raza are its employees.
The plaintiff has not produced any documents that
are suggested to DW1 regarding the defendant's
employees. When the plaintiff is aware of maintaining
the records of its employees certainly the plaintiff
ought to have produce some documents before the
Court to show that Wasim Raza and Suresh Babu are
15 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
its former employee or they are bound with
contractual obligations between the plaintiff and said
Wasim Raza and Suresh Babu. In the absence of any
such material it has to be accepted that the plaintiff
has failed to prove that Wasim Raza and Suresh Babu
are the previous employees of plaintiff and they have
misused the confidential information of plaintiff after
joining the defendant.
14. The plaintiff also claimed that Wasim Raza
and Suresh Babu has approached the two other
employees of plaintiff namely Jaishankar Nagaraj and
Abhishek Bagade and induced them to share the
confidential data of the plaintiff and also jobs were
offered to them. In the plaint para 6 it is further
stated that said Jaishankar Nagaraj and Abhishek
Bagade shared the confidential data of the plaintiff
with the Suresh Babu. It is further stated that
Abhishek Bagade has sent the confidential
information of the plaintiff from its official E-mail ID
'[email protected]' to the personal
email ID [email protected] . If any mail has
16 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
been sent from the official Email Id, the plaintiff would
have produced the same before the Court, but the
plaintiff failed to produce any such documentary
evidence in support of said contention. Apart from
that it is also not the case of plaintiff that Jaishankar
Nagaraj and Abhishek Bagade are not in good terms
with plaintiff or they are not presently employed with
the plaintiff. So that, the plaintiff cannot examined
them in support of its contention. Therefore, the
plaintiff has failed to prove the sharing of confidential
information as claimed in the plaint. Further, the
plaintiff has failed to prove any of its claim by placing
any cogent and acceptable evidence. Further, even
Ex.P.4 is also not proved by the plaintiff.
15. It is true that the defendant filed the
written statement, wherein it is claimed that it is
carrying on the business of educational services. In
support of said contention, the defendant examined
its Chief Executive officer namely Chader Prakash
Garg as DW1, he also reiterated the written statement
averments and plaintiff not denied the said contention
17 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
. Hence, it has to be accepted that the defendant is
also carrying on the business of educational services.
16. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has not
placed any cogent and acceptable evidence to show
that the defendant is using the trade mark 'Edurite' as
claimed in the plaint. Of course the plaintiff has
produced the online search at Ex.P.3. As per the said
document the plaintiff searched for the words
'Edurite worksheets Globalshiksha'. On the basis of
only this document, it cannot be accepted that the
defendant has infringed or passing off of the plaintiff's
trade mark. Admittedly, the name of the company of
plaintiff and defendant are different and except the
Ex.P.3, there is no other material on record to show
that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's trade
mark. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons this court
is of the humble opinion that the plaintiff has proved
issue No.1, the defendant has proved the issue No.4
and the plaintiff has failed to prove the issue No.2 &
3. In view of these facts, the plaintiff is not entitled for
the relief claimed in the suit. accordingly, issue No.1
18 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc
& 4 answered in the affirmative and Issue No.2, 3 & 5
are answered in the negative.
17. ISSUE NO. 6: In view of my finding on the
above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed.
No order as to cost.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 3 rd day of January, 2024.] [PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 :: Veerendra Kumar
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
D.W.1 :: Chader Prakash Garg
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 :: Board resolution dated 8/2/2022 19 O.S.4374_2017_Judgment_IPR.doc Ex.P2 :: Assignment Deed dated 1/7/2017 Ex.P3 :: Online printout of Google Search result Ex.P4 :: Email dated 4/5/2017 Ex.P5 :: Certificate Under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P6 :: Trademark Certificate of plaintiff with legal use certificate
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 :: Appointment /Offer Letter.
[PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.