Bombay High Court Restrains Ex-Kidzee Franchisee From Using 'KIDGEE' Or Similar Mark Pending Arbitration

The Bombay High Court on 25 August restrained Beauty Singh, a former franchisee of ZEE Learn Limited, from using “KIDZEE”, “KIDGEE” or any deceptively or phonetically similar name for her school pending arbitration.

Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed ZEE Learn's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which permits courts to grant interim measures in arbitration related disputes), holding that the trademark dispute arising from the parties' franchise agreement was capable of arbitration. He held:

“Therefore, only because the dispute concerns a trademark, it does not go outside the arbitration agreement. The Court has to see what is the actual right which is being enforced and from where that right arises.”

The dispute arose from a Franchise Agreement dated 20 January 2014, under which ZEE Learn granted Singh the right to operate a “Kidzee Centre”, a nursery school at Jhumritilaiya, Koderma, Jharkhand, using its intellectual property.

The six-year franchise expired on 20 January 2020. ZEE Learn alleged that Singh continued the same educational activity after the franchise ended and subsequently operated the school under the name “KIDGEE”.

ZEE Learn alleged that Singh deliberately adopted “KIDGEE” because of its phonetic similarity to “KIDZEE”, allowing her to retain the impression that her school continued to be associated with the brand. It also relied on material allegedly showing continued use of “KIDZEE”. On 12 February 2026, ZEE Learn published public notices clarifying that Singh's school was no longer associated with it.

Thereafter, it approached the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking interim protection pending arbitration. It relied on Clause 14.4 of the Franchise Agreement, which prohibited Singh from claiming any continuing association with ZEE Learn after termination of the franchise.

Singh maintained that she had stopped using “KIDZEE”, that “KID” was a generic word and that “KIDGEE” was a different name. She also relied on government permission and a UDISE Code for operating the school.

Rejecting the objection to arbitration, the Court noted that ZEE Learn was not seeking cancellation or registration of any trademark or a declaration binding on the public at large. It held that the dispute was confined to whether Singh could use ZEE Learn's mark or a similar mark after expiry of the franchise despite the contractual obligations she had undertaken. These were rights and obligations between the two parties and were therefore capable of arbitration.

The Bench also found a strong prima facie case for restraining the use of “KIDGEE”. Singh had operated under “KIDZEE” for several years, continued the same educational activity after the franchise ended and adopted a closely similar name.

It observed that a parent familiar with the school as “KIDZEE” could believe that “KIDGEE” was the same institution under a changed name or continued to be associated with ZEE Learn. It further clarified that government permission to operate a school did not determine whether Singh had complied with her private contractual obligations to ZEE Learn.

Therefore, the Court restrained Singh from using “KIDZEE”, “KIDGEE” or any deceptively or phonetically similar name and directed removal of such branding from the school premises, signboards, advertisements, uniforms, stationery, websites and social media.

It also directed Singh to preserve operational and financial records from 20 January 2020 onwards and, within four weeks, disclose details of students admitted, fees collected and bank accounts used.

However, the Bench refused ZEE Learn's request for a Rs. 7,85,56,728 bank guarantee and appointment of a Court Receiver to collect school fees, holding that the extent of monetary liability required adjudication in arbitration. Therefore, it directed ZEE Learn to take steps to commence arbitral proceedings.

Accordingly, the High Court partially allowed the petition.

Appearances for petitioner (ZEE Learn Limited): Advocates Rashmin Khandekar, Anand Mohan, Umang Mehta, Trisha George i/b Avyaan Legal.

Appearances for respondent (Beauty Singh): Advocate R.C. Mishra.