Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th May, 2025
CS(COMM) 8/2025, I.A. 255/2025 & I.A. 256/2025
THE RITZ HOTEL LIMITED & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R. Mittal and Ms. Gitanjali Sharma, Advocates
versus
M S HOTEL RITZ & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Rishub Kapoor, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pravin Anand, Vaishali R. Mittal, Gitanjali Sharma
For the Respondents: Rishub Kapoor
A trademark is eligible for a well-known declaration when judicial scrutiny of factors like market recognition, geographical reach, and duration of use confirms that the mark has acquired significant reputation and goodwill within the relevant consumer segment.
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1)(zg), 11(6) and 11(7) - Declaration as well-known trademark - Permanent injunction against infringement and passing off - Determination of well-known status depends on factors such as public recognition, duration and extent of use, geographical area, promotion, and record of successful enforcement. (Paras 18-20, 24)
(B) Injunctive relief - Voluntary undertaking - Where parties settle their dispute through an undertaking to cease the use of infringing marks and related digital infrastructure, a court may issue a decree of permanent injunction in terms of the agreed relief. (Paras 17, 17.2)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs moved the court seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging unauthorized use of their hospitality service marks. During the litigation, the defendants submitted an undertaking to cease the use of the impugned marks and related web domains. The plaintiffs also sought a judicial declaration that their marks be recognized as well-known under the governing statute, providing evidence of global presence, promotional history, and financial performance.
Findings of Court:
The court granted a permanent injunction following the defendants' commitment to discontinue the usage of the infringing marks. Upon evaluating the evidence against the statutory criteria regarding public knowledge, duration of use, and geographical reach, the court declared the marks to be well-known within the relevant industry.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendants' activities amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, and whether the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs satisfied the statutory thresholds for declaring their marks as well-known.
Ratio Decidendi: A trademark is entitled to be declared well-known when there is substantial evidence of prolonged usage, extensive geographical promotion, recognized reputation, and a history of successful enforcement of rights. When a defendant admits to infringement and provides an undertaking to cease such activities, a permanent injunction is the appropriate remedy.
Result: Suit decreed; marks declared well-known; permanent injunction granted against the defendants.
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trademarks and passing off of their services as those of the plaintiffs along with other ancillary reliefs.
LEADINGS IN THE PLAINT
2. The plaintiff no. 1, The Ritz Hotel Limited, owns the famous ‘The Ritz Paris’ hotel, which was established in Paris in the year 1898 and is now ranked amongst the most luxurious hotels in the world. The plaintiff no. 3 is the current owner globally of a family of the Ritz marks and ‘RITZ’ formative trademarks such as ‘THE RITZ HOTEL’, ‘RITZ PARIS’, ‘HOTEL RITZ’, ‘RITZ ESCOFFIER’ etc. (hereinafter referred to as “RITZ marks”). The plaintiff no. 1 assigned the RITZ marks to the plaintiff no. 3 in 2021, while the plaintiff no. 1 retained a license to use the RITZ marks.
3. The plaintiff no. 2, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., owns the world-famous trademarks ‘RITZ-CARLTON’, ‘THE RITZ- 
CARLTON’, , and variations thereof (individually and collectively referred to as the “RITZ-CARLTON marks”).
4. The plaintiff no. 2 has registered the RITZ-CARLTON marks in India, where they are used in connection with 5-star luxury hotels operating in Bengaluru and in Pune. The plaintiff no. l’s earliest registration for the mark ‘RITZ’ in India bears registration no. 258396 which was filed in the year 1969. The various trademark registrations granted in favour of the plaintiffs in India for the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are outlined in paragraph 40 of the plaint.
5. The RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks are widely recognized and known among Indian consumers, especially in the hospitality and travel industry. The plaintiffs have promoted their respective trademarks heavily, and the plaintiffs have been recognized and given multiple awards and accolades. In the year 2023, the plaintiff no. 2’s RITZ-CARLTON hotels earned over USD 5.7 Billion in worldwide revenues. In the year 2024, the plaintiff no. 2’s RITZ-CARLTON hotels earned over USD 6 Billion in worldwide revenues.
6. In and around November 2023, the plaintiffs came across the website www.ritz-hotels.com, which, upon access, redirected users to another website, www.thehotelritz.com, both of which prominently displayed the infringing ‘RITZ’ marks in relation to the defendants’ hotel services. Thereafter, the plaintiffs conducted an investigation into the defendants’ business activities, which revealed that the defendants were operating under the infringing ‘RITZ’ marks.
7. The inquiries revealed that apart from the defendants’ social media presence on www.facebook.com, they were also advertising and offering for reservations their facility on third party travel platforms such as www.tripadvisor.com, www.makemytrip.com, www.agoda.com, www.goibibo.com, www.trivago.com, www.expedia.com, www.booking.com, amongst others. It was further confirmed by the investigation that the defendants’ hotel using the infringing ‘RITZ’ marks was receiving negative reviews on the internet.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction along with other ancillary reliefs against the defendants.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
9. Summons in the suit and notice in the interim injunction application was issued to the defendants on 8th January, 2025.
10. On 3rd February, 2025, the defendants entered appearance through their counsel, who submitted that the defendants shall cease the use of impugned marks, ‘HOTEL RITZ’, ‘RITZ HOTEL’/ ‘THE RITZ HOTEL’, 
, and . It was further submitted that the defendants would not operate the website using the domains ‘www.thehotelritz.com’ and ‘www.ritz-hotels.com’ and also refrain from using the email address ‘info@thehotelritz.com’. The defendants were given time to comply with the aforesaid statement and file an affidavit of compliance within four (4) weeks. On the same date, counsel for the plaintiffs gave a statement before the Court that the plaintiffs shall cons
