Bombay High Court Restrains Former Licensee From Using 'Mount Litera Zee School' Mark Pending Arbitration

On 1 September, the Bombay High Court restrained a Dehradun-based school from using the “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” and “MLZS” marks and the MLZS Program pending arbitration.

Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Zee Learn Limited seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust, Dehradun, pending arbitral proceedings. He held that a former licensee cannot continue using a licensor's mark after termination of the licence agreements. He observed:

“Pending commencement and adjudication of the arbitral proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent, its servants, agents, assigns, and all persons claiming through or under the Respondent are restrained from conducting or representing any business, school or educational programme under the name and style of “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” or “MLZS”, or under any mark or name which is deceptively or phonetically similar thereto.”

Zee Learn, which has been running the “Mount Litera Zee School” network of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) schools since 1994, submitted that it had licensed the respondent to operate its school in Dehradun under its MLZS Program, along with the “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL” trademark.

The parties' agreements were revived through a Settlement Agreement in August 2024.

Zee Learn alleged that the respondent later defaulted on payments and, instead of curing the breach, wrote to the Uttarakhand Education Department claiming it was being “forced” to use the petitioner's books, without disclosing that these included National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks.

After a notice of breach went uncured, Zee Learn terminated the agreements in March 2026. It claimed that the respondent continued running the school under its mark despite the termination.

The respondent contested the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction, arguing that since its school and the cause of action were in Dehradun, only courts there had jurisdiction, and that naming Mumbai in the arbitration clause could not override this. It also challenged the arbitration agreement's validity and argued that government directions on textbooks made the contract impossible to perform.

The Court rejected the jurisdiction challenge, holding that the clause stating “the place of arbitration shall be Mumbai” fixed the juridical seat of arbitration, not merely the venue. It noted that the parties had already arbitrated an earlier dispute in Mumbai without objection.

On the trademark issue, the Bench held that the termination clauses in the agreements were valid and that the contracts were “determinable”. It clarified that whether the termination itself was valid would be for the arbitral tribunal to decide, but that dispute did not entitle the respondent to continue using the mark pending the tribunal's decision.

The Court also rejected the respondent's textbook defence, noting that CBSE rules expressly allow schools to “use supplementary material as per their requirement.” It restrained the respondent from operating under the “MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL”/”MLZS” name or any deceptively similar mark and from using the MLZS Program pending arbitration. It directed the respondent to remove Zee Learn's marks from its website and promotional material within seven days and ordered preservation of relevant records.

The Bench declined Zee Learn's prayers to compel the respondent to continue procuring “Litera Gear” study material and paying fees, or to furnish a bank guarantee, holding that such relief could not be granted as interim relief without effectively reviving a terminated contract.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition.