Hospitality — India Trademark Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited And Anr v.M/S Hilton Cloud Resort
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited against M/S Hilton Cloud Resort, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using the name 'HILTON CLOUD RESORT' or any confusingly similar mark while also granting four weeks to remove all listings and usage of the impugned mark across various platforms. This order sets the stage for the full trial, establishing immediate protection for the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v.COURTYARD HOLIDAYS WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marriott Worldwide Corporation against Courtyard Holidays World Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant was misleading consumers by using marks and domain names identical or similar to Marriott's registered 'COURTYARD' brand. Despite the defendant having a registration, the court noted that this registration was obtained through false representation, leading to the restraint order.
Hotel Panchavati v.Hotel Panchawati
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the Defendants alleging infringement of their well-known PANCHVATI trademarks in the hospitality sector. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and domain names.
Hotel Panchavati & Anr. v.Hotel Panchvati & Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Hotel Panchavati & Anr. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' well-known reputation and goodwill associated with the 'PANCHAVATI' marks in the hospitality sector. Finding that the Defendants were using deceptively similar marks and domain names, the Court issued an injunction restraining their continued use of these marks and directed them to remove all infringing materials within three days.
M & H Management Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Shankar
M & H Management Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for passing off their goods and services by using the 'Anantara' trade mark, which is held by the plaintiff. The court partly decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions but rejecting the claim for damages.
Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Bestech India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Single Judge's refusal of an interim injunction against Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the common Sanskrit word 'Ananda' had acquired sufficient secondary distinctiveness to protect the appellant's business goodwill in relation to housing. The court ruled that while the mark was registered, its public domain nature and the limited sales history were insufficient evidence to prevent the respondent from using it in a cognate field.
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v.A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising from an action for passing off. The Plaintiff, a Singapore-registered company using the mark 'Banyan Tree' in the hospitality sector, sued Defendants based on their use of a deceptively similar mark online. Since neither party was physically located within the court's jurisdiction, the Division Bench examined whether the mere accessibility of the defendant's website in Delhi was sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.