Kerala High Court Restrains Former G-TEC Franchisee From Using GIO TECH Mark

Holding that “G-TEC” and “GIO TECH” are phonetically similar and confusion is likely to be caused, the Kerala High Court has restrained a former franchisee from using the marks “GIO TECH” and “GIO TECH COMPUTER ACADEMY,” setting aside a trial court order that had refused interim relief.

Justice S. Manu, in a judgment delivered on February 18, 2026, held that the analysis made by the court below was “by dissecting the trademarks” and that such an exercise “is not in consonance with the settled principles regarding infringement.”

The appeal was filed by G-TEC Education Private Limited against its former franchisee, Binu A. Joy. The respondent had intimated termination of the franchise arrangement on December 14, 2024, with effect from January 20, 2025, which was accepted by the appellant on January 2, 2025.

According to the appellant, after termination of the franchise arrangement, the respondent continued to run the institution under the name “G-TEC COMPUTER EDUCATION.” A notice was issued on January 15, 2025. Following intervention by the police authorities, the respondent agreed to change the name but thereafter started using the name “GIO-TECH” with a deceptively similar logo.

The trial court had dismissed the plea for interim injunction, holding that those who wish to pursue computer education are the customers of the parties, that they belong to an educated class and that they are capable of noticing differences between the trademarks and trade names.

Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc., the court reiterated the Rule of Anti-Dissection. Quoting the precedent, the judgment states:

“This rule mandates that the Courts whilst dealing with cases of trademark infringement involving composite marks, must consider the composite marks in their entirety as an indivisible whole rather than truncating or dissecting them into its component parts and make comparison with the corresponding parts of arrival mark to determine the likelihood of confusion. The raison d'tre underscoring the said principle is that the commercial impression of a composite trademark on an ordinary prospective buyer is created by the mark as a whole and not by its component parts.”

The court further observed:

“It is trite law that the test for substantial similarity involves viewing the products in question through the eyes of the layman. A layman is not expected to memorise precisely the trademarks and note the differences among different trademarks appearing similar at first blush.”

Referring to the Delhi High Court judgment, it also noted that even sophisticated consumers are not immune from confusion under all circumstances and that the degree of similarity necessary to support a finding of infringement is less than in the case of dissimilar or non-competing products. In the present case, both parties are offering similar services.

Taking note of the respondent's conduct as a former franchisee who continued to operate under the appellant's trademark after termination, the court held that “a clear case of dishonest intention is also reflected in the conduct of the respondent in this regard.”

Finding that a prima facie case has been made out and that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellant, the court held that if the respondent is not restrained by an order of injunction, “that may result in irreparable injury and loss to the appellant.”

The impugned order was set aside. The respondent has been restrained from using the trade mark “GIO TECH” or “GIO TECH COMPUTER ACADEMY," along with a deceptively similar logo containing the alphabet “G” or any other visually or phonetically similar mark to that of the petitioner's registered mark “G-TEC COMPUTER EDUCATION” or “G-TEC” trademark and its logo till the disposal of the suit.