SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Indian Hotels Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Grand Vivanta Vacations Private Limited - Respondent
CS (COMM) 560 of 2022 & I.As. 12869 of 2022, 15820 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2022




The use of a registered trademark being identical or deceptively similar in the same service domain constitutes trademark infringement, justifying a permanent injunction.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1)(zg), 29 - Permanent injunction sought for trademark infringement, passing off, and damages - Plaintiff, Indian Hotels Company Limited, recognized for mark 'VIVANTA', represented extensive use since 2008. The Defendant is found using 'GRAND VIVANTA', identical to Plaintiff's mark, leading to confusion. (Paras 13, 25)

(B) Well-known trademarks - Attributes of well-known status established, including extensive marketing and reputation. (Paras 22, 27)

(C) Jurisdiction - Permanent injunction for unauthorized usage and dilution of trademark granted as per established precedents and statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff is a prominent hotel chain part of a noted business group, asserting rights over 'VIVANTA'. The Defendant, which changed its name to 'GRAND VIVANTA', misused the mark for promotional and operational purposes in hospitality, attracting complaints from customers regarding misrepresentation.

Findings of Court:
Granting a permanent injunction against the Defendant from using the mark 'VIVANTA' or any deceptively similar names, along with the transfer of the infringing domain to the Plaintiff and destruction of infringing materials, reaffirmed as an extensive ongoing commercial operation of the Plaintiff.

Issues: The court addressed whether the Defendant’s use of 'GRAND VIVANTA' constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, and if the Plaintiff's mark has attained the status of a well-known trademark.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's extensive investment and use established 'VIVANTA' as a well-known trademark, justifying the injunction against the Defendant's use and reaffirming the principle of protection against unfair competition.

Result: The suit is decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and cost against the Defendant.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim for trademark protection. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defendant's use of the mark vivanta. (Para 5 , 6 , 12)
3. plaintiff's counsel's arguments regarding defendant's infringement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's procedural observations and interim orders. (Para 13 , 14 , 18)
5. court's reasoning on well-known trademarks. (Para 22 , 23)
6. final orders and permanent injunction issued. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-The Indian Hotels Company Limited, seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of trademarks, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and other reliefs.

3. The Plaintiff-The Indian Hotels Company Limited, which is a part of the well-known `TATA' Group of Companies, along with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of hotels and hospitality services in India. The Plaintiff asserts that it has a portfolio of 196 hotels in around 12 countries and in over 80 locations, which includes hotel services branded under the names/marks being `TAJ', `SeleQtions', `GINGER', and `VIVANTA'.

4. As set out in the Plaint, the Plaintiff coined and adopted the mark `VIVANTA' in the year 2008. Since then, the Plaintiff has continuously and consistently used the said mark for 35 `VIVANTA' hotels across 33 destinations. The Plaintiff's mark `VIVANTA' has garnered immense goodwill and reputation, which is evident upon a perusal of the financial highlights placed on record by the Plaintiff. The turnover of the Plaintiff for the year 2021-22 is Rs.668 crores and the advertising and marketing expenditure of the Plaintiff also runs in several crores.

5. The Plaintiff seeks protection of its mark `VIVANTA', used in respect of hospitality services including hotels and resorts, both in India and abroad. The details of the registrations obtained by the Plaintiff in respect of the mark `VIVANTA', are set out below:

MarkReg. No.DateClass
VIVANTA (Word Mark)171510028th July, 200842
VIVANTA BY TAJ (Word Mark)171510128th July, 2008 42,

(Device Mark)
38495501st June, 201843

(Device Mark)
385843113th June, 201843

(Device Mark)
38495491st June, 201843

(Device Mark)
385843013th June, 201843

6. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant is using an identical mark `VIVANTA' in respect of its business activities which are similar to that of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is a company known by the name `Grand Vivanta Vacations Private Limited' located at D-27, Level-III, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, and also at Shop No.006, LGF, Nucleus Mall Circular Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand PIN-834001. The Defendant is also running a resort under the name `The Lazy Haven Resort, Jim Corbett National Park, Kyari-Bandobasti, Tehsil Ramnagar, Uttarakhand'.

7. Mr. Pravin Anand, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant was incorporated in the year 1987 and was earlier using the name `NAP Polymers Specialities Private Limited'. At that time, as per their Memorandum, the Defendant claimed to be dealing in polymers. However, in February, 2021, the name of the Defendant was changed to `GRAND VIVANTA Vacations Private Limited'.

8. The Defendant is also using a domain name, being `www.grandvivanta.com', registered on 5th February, 2021. A screen shot of the said website has been placed on record and is extracted below:

9. The Defendant promotes the mark `VIVANTA' on various social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant is not merely misusing the Plaintiff's mark `VIVANTA', but also using the same, in logo form and in word form for its various brochures, promotional material, and signage. The Defendant also has a mobile application available on the Google Play Store, by the name `GRAND VIVANTA'. The relevant images in respect of the usage of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top