IMPORTANT POINT
The court granted a summary judgment for trademark infringement due to the defendants' failure to contest the claims, establishing the plaintiff's rights in the 'MILLENNIUM' mark.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

C.S. (COMM) No. 692/2023 & I.A. No. 44519/2024 (Under Order XIII-A of the CPC seeking summary judgment against defendants no. 3 and 4)

1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff, passing off their goods and services as that of the plaintiff, and other ancillary reliefs.

PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT

2. The plaintiff, Millennium & Copthorne International Limited, is a global hospitality management and real estate group which owns and operates international five-star and four-star hotels in various countries.

3. The Plaintiff is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Millennium & Copthorne Hotels Limited (“M&C group”) which is a United Kingdom-based hotel and resort company operating a chain of over 130 international five-star and four-star hotels in more than 22 countries under world-famous and reputed brands such as but not limited to MILLENNIUM and GRAND MILLENNIUM. The plaintiff claims rights in the mark/name “MILLENNIUM” adopted in 1994 in the UK and various other countries such as Australia, Cambodia, China, France, USA, Germany and the like.

4. In India, the plaintiff has several registrations of its different trademarks/names. The plaintiff’s earliest registration is in class 16 since the year 1995. In particular, the plaintiff places reliance on the following registrations for its “MILLENNIUM” marks in India:

The Certificates for use in Legal Proceedings are filed as documents no. 29 to 31 of the documents filed along with the plaint. All the aforesaid registrations remain valid and subsisting.

5. The plaintiff's trade mark “MILLENNIUM” is widely known in India, which is evident from the frequency with which the plaintiff's websites have been visited and its services have been availed. From January 2021 to December 2021, the plaintiff's website had 91,568 page visits from India. Further, the revenues generated on account of bookings from India for the same period were USD 3,410,969.

6. Further, the plaintiff had entered into a Sales Agency Agreement with Makemytrip (India) Private Limited (“Makemytrip”) appointing it as the sales agent representative and service support provider for the sale and marketing in the Indian subcontinent of the worldwide portfolio of properties and hospitality products of the M&C Group.

7. The defendant no. 3, Aryans Plaza Services Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated on February 11, 2005.

8. The defendant no. 4, Mr. Sanjay Makkar, is the Chairman and Managing Director of the defendant no. 3 Company.

9. The defendants no. 3 and 4 herein were also the defendants in an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff before this Court titled Millennium & Copthorne International Limited v. Aryans Plaza Services Private Limited & Ors. (CS COMM No. 774/2016), wherein the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendants no. 3 and 4’s (defendants no. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid suit) adoption and use of the trade mark “MILLENNIUM” and/or the impugned logo [] in connection with their hotel.

10. Vide order dated 8th October, 2018, this Court allowed the plaintiff’s application seeking an interim injunction and restrained the defendants no. 3 and 4 herein from using the aforementioned marks.

11. The aforesaid suit was subsequently decreed vide order dated 15th January, 2019, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 3 and 4 herein in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. As per the said settlement, the defendants no. 3 and 4 herein had agreed to not adopt and/or use the trade mark MILLENNIUM [] and [] or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s MILLENNIUM branding in any form whatsoever.

12. It is submitted that the defendants no. 3 and 4, despite furnishing the aforementioned undertaking, collaborated with the defendants no. 1 and 2, with an intent to continue violating the plaintiff’s rights in the MILLENNIUM branding.

13. The plaintiff’s gri