The trademark 
‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ KINDLING YOUNG MINDS’ was applied for registration in the field of “Kindergarten Education Service” under class 41. The Petitioners, Sebille Educations Private Limited, and its Manager, Mr. Ahmed Hussain, approached the Madras High Court to rectify the Trade Marks Register and expunge, remove, and/or cancel the LITTLE EINSTEINZ mark as it was phonetically similar to their mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINS’ registered in class 41.
The Petitioners stated that they had been providing kindergarten education services under the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINS’ since 20.06.2008 and had also acquired goodwill and reputation internationally. It was contended that the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ’ bearing Application no. 2232874 in class 41 was deceptively and phonetically similar to their mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINS’. Both marks were used for providing identical services related to ‘Kindergarten Education’. It was highlighted in the Petition that the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ’ was used since 04.11.2009, which was subsequent to the adoption of the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINS’.
The Petitioners argued that the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ’ was adopted with mala fide intent to take advantage of their earlier mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINS’ registered under class 41 for providing identical services. Therefore, the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ’ was liable for rectification for passing off their services under a deceptively similar mark.
In the absence of the Respondent, the Court observed that the Petitioners are the prior users of the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINS’ and the mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ’ was adopted with bad intentions by merely replacing the letter ‘S’ with ‘Z’. It was further observed that the visual and phonetic similarity of the two marks would cause confusion in the minds of the consumers and that the Trade Marks Registry ought to have been vigilant while issuing the Registration Certificate for the device mark ‘LITTLE EINSTEINZ’. Since the Court was in consonance with the contentions of the Petitioner, the Court allowed the rectification petition and the related application was closed.
Citation: Ahmed Hussain. B vs Sh.Sunil Jethi, Madras High Court, 14th June 2024 [OP (TM) No.24 of 2024 & (TM)-A. No.27 of 2024]
Authored by Ms. Swathi Muthukumar, Trademark Team.
Reviewed and confirmed by Ms. Benita Alphonsa Basil, Trademark Team.
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
