Intercity Hotel GMBH v. Hotel Intercity Delhi and Others

2019 SCC OnLine Del 7644

PARTIES

The Plaintiff; Intercity Hotel GMBH is in the business of providing temporary accommodations with food and drinks.

The Defendant Hotel Intercity Delhi is also in the business of providing temporary accommodation with food and drinks and is operating a hotel in Karol Bagh.

BRIEF FACTS

Plaintiff’s trademark INTERCITYHOTEL is registered in multiple jurisdictions, dating as far back as 1992 in Germany. In India, it was registered in the year 2011, in class 43 – temporary accommodation providing food and drink. The plaintiff also has the registered device mark for the same.

The defendant is using the trade mark ‘HOTEL INTERCITY DELHI’ in respect of his hotel in Karol Bagh.

The defendant has been using the trademark in India since 2010.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, had applied for registration on 20-05- 2011 as a proposed user. Admittedly, more than five years elapsed and the plaintiff did not use the trade mark in India. Evidently, no hotel or any similar establishment was set up by the plaintiff in India to make use of the said trade mark.

Effectively, the only ground on which the plaintiff is claiming protection of his trade mark is that it has acquired a global reputation and goodwill in light of plaintiff’s 37 hotels abroad.

ISSUES

Whether a trade mark is to be governed by the principle of territoriality or by the doctrine of universality?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek an interim injunction despite not having commenced business in India using the registered trademark?

APPLICABLE RULE

Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, 1999

ARGUMENTS

The plaintiff argued that even though they had not commenced business in India under the registered trademark, in light of their global repute and goodwill, defendants should be stopped from using the deceptively similar trade mark.

The defendant claimed to be a prior user of the said trademark.

DECISION

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi referred to a number of Supreme Court judgments and concluded that it is necessary to inspect whether there has been any spill-over of the global goodwill and reputation within the relevant geographical territory.

The Hon’ble Court noted that the plaintiff had failed to show any spill- over of the global reputation in India. No details or evidence was adduced with regard to advertisement and promotion done in India.

The Hon’ble Court held that in light of the above, balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff and hence no injunction can be granted.

In the interests of justice however, the Court ordered the defendant to declare on their website that defendant hotel is in no manner associated with Intercity Hotel GMBH, Frankfurt, Germany.

Author: Tarun Khurana (Partner and Patent Attorney), Abhishek Pandurangi (Partner and Patent Attorney) and Niharika Sanadhya, Litigation Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at niharika@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010