M/S Global Opportunities Pvt Ltd Through Its Managing Director Sidharth Gupta vs Ms. Ashwinee Satwe
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 13.10.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010179402026
+ CS(COMM) 443/2026
M/S GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES PVT LTD THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR SIDHARTH GUPTA .....Plaintiff
versus
MS. ASHWINEE SATWE .....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Sanjay Suri, Mr. Saransh Suri,
Mr. Sameer Nandwani and Mr.
Rishabh Relan, Advocates.
For the Defendant : Ms. Pooja Ghorpade and Mr. Sandeep
Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
IA No.11712/2026
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 1 of 18
interim injunction against the Defendant in relation to the use of the Mark
‘GLOBAL STUDY EXPERT’ (“ Impugned Mark ”) and the alleged misuse
of the Plaintiff’s confidential information.
2. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of advising and assisting
students for higher education abroad, including expert counselling,
admissions, visa guidance, and comprehensive ancillary support services
under the Mark ‘GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES’ / ‘
’
(“ Subject Mark ”). The Defendant joined the Plaintiff in 2013 and resigned
from her employment on 19.09.2025. It is the case of the Plaintiff that it
came to its knowledge on 13.11.2025 that the Defendant was carrying on an
overseas education consultancy business under the Impugned Mark and also
using the Impugned Mark as its Trade Name.
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has adopted the
Impugned Mark to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation associated
with the Subject Mark and that the Defendant has misused the Plaintiff’s
confidential information and diverted students and business opportunities to
the Defendant’s competing venture.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
4. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:
4.1 Since its inception in 2001, the Plaintiff has been undertaking
student recruitment from across India for more than 700
international institutions and university partners. The Plaintiff has
about 20 offices in all major cities in India and has created over
1,25,000 global graduates.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 2 of 18
4.2 In the course of its business, the Plaintiff in an honest and bona
fide manner independently coined and adopted the Subject Mark in
relation to educational consultancy services, at a time when no
such trade mark was known or in use for such services, and since
its adoption the Plaintiff has been openly, extensively,
continuously and uninterruptedly using the Subject Mark also as
the leading and essential part of the Plaintiff’s Trade Name. The
Plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the Subject Mark in
Class 41. Thus, in addition to the common law rights, the Plaintiff
has acquired statutory rights in the Subject Mark.
4.3 The Plaintiff has a strong online and offline presence and
consequently has acquired goodwill and reputation under the
Subject Mark. The extensive use of the Subject Mark, coupled
with extensive promotion and advertisement by the Plaintiff, has
significantly contributed to the attainment of goodwill, reputation,
and recognition of its business under the Subject Mark. A mere
Google search conducted for the Word ‘GLOBAL
OPPORTUNITIES’ gives the result pages of the Plaintiff only.
Therefore, the Subject Mark has come to be an inextricable part of
the Plaintiff’s reputation, so much so that any remote depiction of
the same is exclusively and solely associated only with the
Plaintiff and no one else.
4.4 By virtue of prior adoption, extensive use, promotional efforts, and
registration, the Plaintiff enjoys exclusive proprietary rights over
the Subject Mark, and the members of trade and consumers
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 3 of 18
recognize the Subject Mark to be distinctive of the business of the
Plaintiff alone, and the same has an exclusive and unequivocal
association with the Plaintiff.
4.5 The Defendant was employed with the Plaintiff as Sr. Counsellor
in the year 2013 and with the extensive in-house training granted
by the Plaintiff, slowly over the years rose to the rank of Branch
Manager. The Defendant through the training and grooming
provided by the Plaintiff, learnt all the trade secrets, mannerisms of
placement, dealing with students, and other ways of doing business
of the Plaintiff.
4.6 The Defendant, being its erstwhile Branch Manager at the Dadar
Branch of the Plaintiff, engaged in a series of dishonest and
clandestine acts whereby, during and after the Defendant’s
employment, the Defendant diverted clients of the Plaintiff to
competitor entities and to the Defendant’s own competing venture
under the Impugned Mark for her personal benefit.
4.7 On 13.11.2025, the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant had started
and was operating an overseas education consultancy under the
Impugned Mark, with office in Mumbai and branches in Mumbai
and Nagpur and through the website globalstudyexpert.in, and
called the Defendant to refrain from her activities against the
Plaintiff, and a WhatsApp message was sent in detail that the
Defendant had lied and left the Plaintiff and was now working in
another company.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 4 of 18
4.8 The Plaintiff, through its counsel, also issued a legal notice dated
12.01.2026 to the Defendant, thereby calling upon the Defendant
to forthwith cease and desist from adopting and using the
Impugned Mark and / or any other deceptive variation(s) thereof,
as a trade mark, corporate name / trade name, trading style, domain
name, email / WhatsApp signature or in any other manner
whatsoever.
4.9 The Defendant replied to the said notice through her counsel,
refuting the claim of the Plaintiff, stating that the allegations of
data theft, trade mark infringement, etc., are false and alleging
unfair labour practice by the Plaintiff. Further, a cease and desist
notice was also sent along with the reply stipulating that the
Defendant would initiate a civil proceeding against the Plaintiff.
4.10 The Defendant was also warned about the stolen database and
poached Plaintiff’s students and was asked to refrain from doing
so. Further, the Defendant is describing herself as ‘General
Manager - Global Study Expert’ and using the mission line
“ Dream global with global study expert ” in Defendant’s
communications. The Impugned Mark, bearing the prominent and
distinctive word “GLOBAL”, is deceptively similar to the Subject
Mark, particularly when used for identical / overlapping services in
the same field of overseas education consultancy. The Impugned
Mark, in conjunction with the Defendant’s overall branding and
representation in the market, is likely to lead and is already leading
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 5 of 18
the general public and students into believing that the services
offered by the Defendant are in some way connected with,
endorsed by, or otherwise associated with the Plaintiff, which is
clearly not the case.
4.11 The Defendant has unlawfully accessed, extracted, stored, and
misused the Plaintiff’s confidential client database, internal
records, fee structures, business strategies and proprietary
documents, and used such stolen data and information to contact,
solicit and lure existing students and employees of the Plaintiff to
the Defendant’s competing venture under the Impugned Mark,
thereby causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiff and corresponding
unlawful gain to the Defendant.
4.12 These acts, which are already the subject matter of criminal
complaints lodged by the Plaintiff before the competent
authorities, constitute, inter alia , offences corresponding to
cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, cheating
with knowledge that wrongful loss may be caused, criminal breach
of trust by employee, dishonest misappropriation of property, data
theft and unauthorised extraction and dishonest or fraudulent use
of computer resources, forgery for the purpose of cheating, identity
/ personation offences and use of forged materials, as well as
unauthorised and deceptive use of the Subject Mark attracting the
provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and are indicative of a
concerted scheme to ride upon and exploit the goodwill and
reputation subsisting in Subject Mark and the Plaintiff’s business
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 6 of 18
resulting in wrongful gain to the Defendant and corresponding
wrongful loss to the Plaintiff.
4.13 The Plaintiff has also received in writing from the students that the
Defendant has been misusing the brand value of the Plaintiff and
was calling them to leave the Plaintiff and build a direct nexus
with the Defendant for their admission abroad from the agency
which does not belong to the Plaintiff and has a deceptively similar
brand name with the mission line accentuating upon the word
“GLOBAL” which otherwise is a generic word however in the
peculiar circumstances of the present case becomes intrinsically
related to the Plaintiff.
4.14 The Defendant has also started approaching the foreign
universities based in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United
States of America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Dubai, and
Singapore, which had a direct license with the Plaintiff, and the
Plaintiff is working with these universities on a commission basis.
The acts of the Defendant in poaching students by stating that she
was working for the Plaintiff and deliberately adopting the
Impugned Mark deceptively similar to the Subject Mark, is
causing reputational and financial loss to the Plaintiff. The
Employment Agreement also envisages a Non-Compete Clause
which puts a direct embargo upon the Defendant to not enter into a
similar set of services for a period of minimum six months after
leaving the employment of the Plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 7 of 18
4.15 The Plaintiff and persons authorized by the Plaintiff are alone
authorized to use the Subject Mark and / or its variations. Any use
of the Subject Mark or any similar / deceptively similar mark,
without the authorization of the Plaintiff, is not permissible, and
any unauthorized imitation thereof is likely to confuse and will
result in violation of the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights in the same.
As a result of the Defendant’s aforesaid actions, the Plaintiff
would suffer irreparable loss, harm, and injury to its business and
hard-earned reputation. The Defendant’s aforesaid action
constitutes infringement of the Subject Mark and passing off with
deliberate intent to misrepresent and unauthorizedly capitalize on
the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and to cause loss and
damage to the Plaintiff. Such adoption and continued use of the
Impugned Mark amount to falsification of the Subject Mark and
also constitute acts of unfair competition.
4.16 All the above characteristics in the adoption of the Impugned Mark
being substantially similar and / or identical to that of the Plaintiff
cannot be termed as “ coincidental ”. The above malicious act is a
deliberate attempt by the Defendant to cash upon the reputation
and goodwill of the Plaintiff. If the Defendant were allowed to
continue with its wrongful activities, the Plaintiff would be
deprived of its exclusive right to use the Subject Mark, business
loss, and trade loss, as a result whereof the Plaintiff is bound to
suffer loss and damage which cannot be compensated in monetary
terms.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 8 of 18
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
5. Learned Counsel for the Defendant made the following submissions:
5.1 The Plaintiff has intentionally failed to disclose that prior to filing
the present suit, a criminal complaint against the Defendant was
lodged by the Plaintiff before Shivaji Park Police Station, Mumbai
alleging substantially similar allegations of data theft, diversion of
students, and misuse of confidential information. Upon inquiry, no
incriminating material whatsoever was found against the
Defendant and the said complaint was closed. Suppression of such
information disentitles the Plaintiff from any equitable or
discretionary relief.
5.2 After resigning from the Plaintiff, the Defendant duly completed
all exit formalities and returned every item belonging to the
Plaintiff including laptop, hard disk mobile, SIM cards,
documents, keys, devices, and all company property whatsoever.
Upon completion of the exit process, all official access credentials
including email access, CRM access, internal systems, and
database permissions were disabled by the Plaintiff itself.
Therefore, the allegation that the Defendant accessed, copied,
downloaded, transferred, or misused confidential data after
resignation is completely false, baseless, fabricated, and
technologically impossible. The allegations of data theft are also
devoid of any technical or forensic evidence.
5.3 The confidential information allegedly belonging to the Plaintiff
consists primarily of publicly available information including
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 9 of 18
university names, admission procedures, tuition fees, visa
guidelines, course details, student counselling methods, and
educational opportunities which are readily accessible through
public sources including university websites, educational portals,
social media platforms, counselling forums, and public lead-
generation databases. Such information cannot be classified as
trade secrets or proprietary confidential information under settled
principles of law.
5.4 A substantial portion of the Plaintiff’s case is founded upon an
alleged non-compete obligation and an attempt to restrain the
Defendant from carrying on lawful employment or business in the
overseas education sector after cessation of employment. Such a
claim is contrary to the settled position of law and is expressly
barred by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Reliance
was placed upon Percept D’Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer
Khan , 2006 SCC Online SC 319 and Niranjan Shankar Golikari
v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., 1967 SCC OnLine SC 72 to
submit that post-employment restrictive covenants are void and
unenforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
5.5 The Defendant is in possession of the original appointment letter
and that the appointment letter relied upon by the Plaintiff is not
the original document executed by the Defendant which materially
differs in its contents, format, handwriting, endorsements, and
execution. The signature and handwriting allegedly attributed to
the Defendant also do not correspond with the Defendant’s actual
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 10 of 18
signature and handwriting. The Plaintiff’s reliance upon such
disputed and fabricated documents amounts to a fraud upon the
Court and the Suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
5.6 The Plaintiff has taken mutually destructive and contradictory
stands before different forums. In the criminal complaint filed
before the police authorities, the Plaintiff alleged losses running
into approximately ₹3-4 Crores, whereas in the present
proceedings the Plaintiff has alleged losses of approximately ₹1-2
Crores. Similarly, the names and number of students allegedly
diverted by the Defendant have materially changed from one
proceeding to another. Such inconsistent allegations demonstrate
that the Plaintiff is merely making exaggerated claims to create
prejudice against the Defendant.
5.7 The Defendant has rendered nearly thirteen years of service to the
Plaintiff and had contributed towards its business growth, student
acquisitions, revenue generation, and market goodwill. The
Plaintiff wanted the continued association with the Defendant and
for the same the Plaintiff approached the Defendant with double
the salary to retain the Defendant and when she denied the
Plaintiff’s proposal, the Plaintiff, initiated various malicious
proceedings against the Defendant including false criminal
complaints, defamatory publications, legal notices and the present
Suit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 11 of 18
5.8 The Plaintiff’s case is fundamentally misconceived as it seeks to
claim exclusive rights over the generic, descriptive and publici
juris expression “GLOBAL”. The word “GLOBAL” is common to
trade, descriptive in nature, and extensively used by numerous
entities engaged in overseas education, immigration, consultancy,
and educational services throughout India and abroad. The
Plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over such a common expression.
5.9 The Impugned Mark has no similarity with the Subject Mark and
the common element is only the word “GLOBAL”, which is a
generic and widely used term in the overseas education industry.
The remaining portions of the Subject Mark and the Impugned
Mark are phonetically, visually and structurally different. The
words “OPPORTUNITIES” and “STUDY EXPERT” also convey
different concepts. The Plaintiff has failed to prove any similarity
in logo, website design, colour scheme, branding style, trade dress,
letterhead, or domain name resembling the Plaintiff’s business.
5.10 It is settled law that common and descriptive words available to
trade cannot ordinarily be monopolised by a single trader. The
Supreme Court in Skyline Education Institute (India) (P) Ltd. v.
S.L. Vaswani , (2010) 2 SCC 142 and J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix
India, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 215, held that common descriptive
expressions cannot be exclusively appropriated in the absence of
overwhelming evidence of acquired distinctiveness and secondary
meaning. The Plaintiff has failed to establish any such exclusive
association. The word “GLOBAL” is extensively used by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 12 of 18
hundreds of entities operating in the education and overseas
consultancy sector and therefore cannot form the basis of any
monopoly claim against the Defendant.
5.11 The Defendant possesses independent professional experience,
skill, counselling expertise, and industry knowledge acquired over
nearly eighteen years in the overseas education sector, including
approximately five years of experience even prior to joining the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff cannot claim ownership over the
Defendant’s personal skills, expertise, goodwill, counselling
methods, professional relationships, or industry experience.
5.12 Many students mentioned by the Plaintiff were already processed
by the Plaintiff itself during the Defendant’s employment and
several students independently contacted the Defendant after
learning of the Defendant’s resignation because the Plaintiff itself
had publicly circulated the Defendant’s personal mobile number
through banners, visiting cards, WhatsApp groups, advertisements,
and promotional material during the course of employment. The
Defendant cannot be blamed merely because students were already
familiar with the Defendant professionally.
5.13 The Defendant’s Trade Name “GLOBAL STUDY EXPERT” was
neither newly created nor adopted after the Defendant’s
resignation from the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s husband had
acquired and registered a Udyog Aadhar in the name and style of
“GLOBAL STUDY EXPERT” in the year 2011, which is nearly
two years prior to the Defendant joining the Plaintiff in March
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 13 of 18
2013. The said licence was originally obtained with the genuine
intention that the Defendant and her husband would eventually
establish and operate their own independent overseas education
consultancy business.
5.14 After the birth of their child the Defendant and her husband
considered it financially risky and impractical at that stage to
commence an independent business venture. Consequently, instead
of operating the said establishment, the Defendant chose to take up
employment with the Plaintiff organisation in March 2013 where
the Defendant continued to work for nearly thirteen years.
5.15 The existence of the Defendant’s Trade Name “GLOBAL STUDY
EXPERT” since the year 2011 itself demolishes the Plaintiff’s
false allegation that the said name was dishonestly adopted after
resignation with any intention to imitate, compete with, or deceive
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is falsely attempting to portray the
Defendant’s independent professional competence as its
proprietary creation.
5.16 The Plaintiff has also failed to produce any audited accounts,
balance sheets, forensic reports, revenue statements, university
communications, student complaints, or any other cogent evidence
demonstrating actual loss, diversion of business, or damage
allegedly suffered due to the Defendant. The allegations of loss,
therefore, are vague, exaggerated, unsupported, and inconsistent
with the Plaintiff’s own turnover figures.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 14 of 18
5.17 The Plaintiff has produced no documentary proof that any
confidential data was stolen, copied, downloaded, or transferred.
Allegations are vague, generic, and unsupported by any concrete
evidence making the complaint frivolous and malicious. There
exists no likelihood of confusion, deception, or passing off. The
Plaintiff has failed to establish any ingredients necessary to
constitute trade mark infringement or passing off under the Trade
Marks Act, 1999.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6. By the present Application, the Plaintiff seeks to restrain the
Defendant from using the Impugned Mark on the ground that it is
deceptively similar to the Subject Mark and is used in relation to identical
services. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s adoption of the
Impugned Mark is dishonest in view of her erstwhile employment with the
Plaintiff. This contention rests principally on the inclusion of the word
“GLOBAL” in the Impugned Mark.
7. It is settled law that competing marks must be compared in their
entirety, having regard to their overall commercial impression, appearance
and structure. The Subject Mark comprises the words “GLOBAL
OPPORTUNITIES”, whereas the Impugned Mark comprises the words
“GLOBAL STUDY EXPERT”. The sole common element is the word
“GLOBAL”. The remaining expressions, namely, “OPPORTUNITIES” and
“STUDY EXPERT”, differ visually, phonetically, structurally and
conceptually. Viewed as a whole, the Subject Mark and the Impugned Mark
convey distinct impressions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 15 of 18
8. The word “GLOBAL” is an ordinary English word commonly used to
denote an international or worldwide character. In relation to overseas
education consultancy services, it is descriptive of the nature and reach of
such services. The Plaintiff has not prima facie established any exclusive
right in the word “GLOBAL”, independently of the Subject Mark, or
demonstrated that the word has acquired distinctiveness sufficient to
associate it exclusively with the Plaintiff’s business. Consequently, the
Plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the word “GLOBAL” merely by
virtue of its inclusion in the Subject Mark.
9. The Plaintiff relies upon its continuous use of the Subject Mark, its
business presence across various cities in India and its association with
several foreign universities to establish goodwill and reputation. However,
the material on record does not prima facie demonstrate that the word
“GLOBAL”, independently of the Subject Mark, has acquired recognition
sufficient to associate its use in relation to overseas education consultancy
services exclusively with the Plaintiff.
10. The Defendant’s erstwhile employment with the Plaintiff and
subsequent adoption of the Impugned Mark do not, by themselves, establish
dishonest adoption. Having regard to the generic and descriptive nature of
the word “GLOBAL”, the Impugned Mark must be assessed in its entirety.
In the absence of deceptive similarity between the Subject Mark and the
Impugned Mark, the use of the word “GLOBAL” is insufficient to infer
dishonest intention on the part of the Defendant in adopting the Impugned
Mark.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 16 of 18
11. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has misused its confidential
information, including its client database, internal records, fee structures and
business strategies, to divert students and business opportunities to her
competing venture.
12. The Defendant contends that the information relied upon by the
Plaintiff is publicly available and does not constitute confidential
information. It is further submitted on behalf of the Defendants that upon the
Defendant’s resignation, all company property was returned and her access
to the Plaintiff’s internal systems and database was disabled.
13. The material placed on record by the Plaintiff does not prima facie
establish either the confidential nature of the information allegedly misused
or that the Defendant copied, extracted or transferred any confidential
information belonging to the Plaintiff and subsequently utilised it for her
competing venture. The Defendant’s access to the Plaintiff’s business
information during her employment does not, by itself, establish misuse of
such information following the cessation of her employment.
14. The allegations relating to the Defendant’s erstwhile employment
with the Plaintiff, misuse of confidential information, diversion of students
and universities, and breach of the terms of employment raise disputed
questions of fact requiring evidence to be adduced by the Parties.
15. The Plaintiff further contends that the Employment Agreement
contains a Non-Compete Clause restraining the Defendant from providing
similar services for six months following the cessation of her employment.
The alleged breach of the Non-Compete Clause is contractual in nature and
does not, by itself, constitute infringement of the Plaintiff’s intellectual
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 17 of 18
property rights in the Subject Mark. Whether the Subject Mark has been
infringed must be determined by reference to the similarity between the
Subject Mark and the Impugned Mark, rather than any restriction imposed
under the Employment Agreement. Accordingly, the contentions concerning
the Non-Compete Clause are not relevant to determining whether the
Defendant’s use of the Impugned Mark infringes the Subject Mark.
16. Upon consideration of the competing marks in their entirety, the
nature of the services offered by the Parties and the material on record, the
Plaintiff has failed, at this stage, to establish a prima facie case of
infringement or passing off. The balance of convenience likewise does not
favour the Plaintiff, as restraining the Defendant from using the Impugned
Mark, in the absence of prima facie deceptive similarity with the Subject
Mark, would adversely affect her business. Nor does the material on record
prima facie establish that the Plaintiff is likely to suffer injury arising from
the Defendant’s use of the Impugned Mark that cannot be adequately
compensated in damages.
17. For the foregoing reasons, no ground is made out for the grant of an
interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.
18. The observations in this Judgment are confined to the adjudication of
the present Application and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion
on the merits of the Suit.
19. Accordingly, the present Application stands dismissed.
TEJAS KARIA, J
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
CS(COMM) 443/2026 Page 18 of 18