Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited – Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal And Ors. – Defendants
CS(COMM) 42 of 2025, I.A. 1268 of 2025-Stay
Decided On : 28-07-2025
For the Plaintiff : Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Prabhu Tandon, Mr. Christopher Thomas, Mr. Yash A. Arora, Advs.
For the Defendants : Ms. Kangana Roda, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Mr. Suneet Kumar Tyagi and Ms. Amulya Kaushik, Advs.
A registered trademark owner holds exclusive rights to use and seek relief against infringement, establishing priority based on prior registration and usage.
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 28 and 11 - Interim injunction sought against defendants for infringement/passing off of registered trademark "CRODELIA CRUISES" - Plaintiff operates premium cruise services; defendants use deceptively similar marks "CORDELIA INN" - Plaintiff’s prior registration and use established. (Paras 1, 12, 24, 25)
(B) Trademark Registration - Priority of user and registrant rights emphasized; similarity of services and likelihood of confusion between rival marks acknowledged. (Paras 14-21)
(C) Balance of convenience - Found to favour plaintiff; irreparable harm to plaintiff if injunction not granted also noted. (Paras 24-26)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed exclusive use of the mark “Cordelia Cruises” since 2020 and successfully registered it. The defendants adopted the mark “Cordelia Inn” in 2022, resulting in the plaintiff seeking an injunction.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the plaintiff is the prior user and registrant of the trademark, leading to a decision in favor of the plaintiff for an interim injunction.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the trademark claims and the likelihood of confusion in a shared hospitality market.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff’s registration and use of the mark provided exclusive rights under the TM Act, warranting protection against the defendant’s similar mark.
Result: The defendants are restrained from using the impugned mark.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. 1268/2025-Stay
Preface:
(hereinafter collectively referred as ‘Impugned Marks’) or any other identically/ deceptively similar marks thereby amounting to infringement/ passing off of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “CRODELIA CRUSES”/
under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, [Hereinafter referred as “the TM Act].Factual Narration:
2. The plaintiff, claiming to be the only company operating domestic premium cruise services in India, adopted the distinctive mark “Cordelia Cruises” immediately after its incorporation on 02.11.2020 for its ocean cruise tourism services, and subsequently registered the domain name www.cordeliacruises.com on 05.12.2020 for customer engagement as well as for its promotion.
(device) in Classes 39, 41, and 43 of the TM Act. The same has since been registered in each of the aforesaid Classes in the name of the plaintiff, and is/ are valid and subsisting till date.
, Since August 2022, the defendants claim to have been operating in the market under the said marks and have also registered the domain name www.hotelcordeliainn.com in their name in the same month. Thereafter, on 04.08.2022, the defendant no.1 applied for registration of the mark 
vide trademark application no. 5558558 in Class 43 of the TM Act before the Trade Marks Registry, which, in its Examination Report dated 28.12.2022 raised an objection under Section 11 of the TM Act, and cited the plaintiff’s registered mark 
. Thereafter, the said mark 
of the defendant no.1 was subsequently advertised with a condition that “REGISTRATION OF THIS TRADE MARK SHALL GIVE NO RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE WORD CORDELIA”.5. On coming to know of the defendant no.1’s aforesaid application in August 2024, the plaintiff issued a Cease-and-Desist notice dated 22.08.2024, calling upon defendant no.1 to withdraw his trademark application and discontinue the use of the impugned mark. However, since the defendant no.1 failed to comply with the request of the plaintiff, the plaintiff proceeded to institute the present suit with the present application.
Submissions by learned counsel for plaintiff:
6. Ms. Kripa Pandit, learned counsel for the plaintiff has made the following submissions:-
in Classes 39, 41, and 43 of the TM Act, which have since been duly registered in its name in each of the aforesaid Class/s. As of now, the plaintiff is thus the registered proprietor thereof.
since 2021 and therefore by virtue of Section 28 of the TM Act, it enjoys exclusive rights to use the trademark and also to obtain relief in respect of infringement and passing off of the said trademark against third parties.6.3. Over the years, the pl
