Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Oravel Stays Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 11 May 2023 · 2023:DHC:3368

C. Hari Shankar

CS(COMM) 663/2021

2023:DHC:3368

civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and allowed condonation of delay applications, decreeing the suit against non-appearing defendants.

Full Text

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3368

CS(COMM) 663/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(COMM) 663/2021, I.A. 16848/2021, I.A. 16954/2022, I.A.
16955/2022, I.A. 7356/2023 & I.A. 7357/2023 CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal and Mr. Mukul Kochhar, Advs.

VERSUS

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Mr. Junaid Aamir, Mr. Avinash Singh and Ms. Seema Mehta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT

(ORAL)
11.05.2023

I.A. 7356/2023 (seeking condonation of delay)

1. By this application, the defendant seeks condonation of delay of 29 days in filing reply to I.A. 16954/2022.

2. The application is not opposed by Ms. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff.

3. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. I.A. 7357/2023 (seeking condonation of delay)

4. This application seeks condonation of delay of 168 days, in filing reply to I.A. 16848/2021.

5. Ms. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff does not oppose this application.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. I.A. 16955/2022 (under Order XIIIA read with Section 151 of the CPC)

7. This is an application under Order XIIIA of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking decreeing of the suit vis-a-vis Defendants 2 to 4 in terms of the prayers contained in the suit.

8. The grievance of the plaintiff, in the present suit, relates to alleged infringement, by the defendants, of the plaintiff‟s registered trademarks, which stand reproduced in a tabular fashion in para 27 of the plaint. The plaintiff holds registrations of the following marks:

S. No. Registration no.

1. 502842B 16 23.12.1988

2. 454036 COMFORT INN 16 13.05.1986

3. 1238101 42 18.09.2003

4. 1361095 42 01.06.2005

5. 1238091 42 18.09.2003

6. 1361094 Condition: The mark shall be always used in the manner shown on label 42 01.06.2005

8,003 characters total

7. 1462362 42 15.06.2006

8. 1462363 COMFORT INN & SUITES Condition: applicant has no exclusive right for the words inn & suites 42 15.06.2006

9. 1462361 COMFORT SUITES 42 15.06.2006

10. 1700556 COMFORT HOTEL 43 18.06.2008

11. 1553777 COMFORT INN Condition: The applicant has no exclusive right for the word Comfort. 43 27.04.2007

12. 3821879 43 02.05.2018

13. 3821880 43 02.05.2018

14. 3821881 43 02.05.2018

15. 3821882 43 02.05.2018

16. 3821883 43 02.05.2018

17. 3821885 43 02.05.2018

18. 3821886 43 02.05.2018

19. 3821884 43 02.05.2018

9. It is alleged that the Defendants 1 to 4 are infringing the aforenoted registered marks of the plaintiff by using the marks which incorporate “COMFORT INN”, “COMFORT” or the plaintiff‟s registered trademarks in part or in whole.

10. Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, learned Counsel for Defendant 1 has drawn my attention to paras 25 and 26 of the order dated 7th July 2022, passed by this Court in the present proceedings, which read thus:

“25. One of the issues that arises in the present suit is whether the Plaintiff has rights in the word/mark 'COMFORT', 'SUITES', „INN' per se or are the rights in the combination marks. A perusal of the plaint and documents placed on record shows that the Plaintiff has various registrations. 26. The question as to the extent of the monopoly that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to enjoy owing to the said registrations would be required to be heard further.”

11. Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the observations contained in the afore-extracted paragraphs from the order dated 7th July 2022 would not adversely impact her request for decreeing of the suit qua Defendants 2 to 4, as she is restricting her relief, qua the said defendants, to their using the registered trademarks of the plaintiff in whole, as they stand registered.

12. As such, qua the said defendants, the issue of whether the plaintiff can claim monopoly over part of the registered trademarks would not arise for consideration.

13. Defendants 2 to 4 have remained absent throughout the present proceedings. No written statement or other response has been filed by the said defendants either in response to the suit or in response to any of the applications filed therewith. By order dated 2nd September 2022, the right of Defendants 2 to 4 to file written statement stands struck off.

14. Even today, the said defendants are not represented.

15. Clearly, therefore, Defendants 2 to 4 are not contesting the present proceedings.

16. In view of the fact that the plaintiff holds registrations in its favour of the marks extracted in para 8 supra, it is clear that use of the said marks, by any other person, would tantamount to infringement of the plaintiff‟s registered marks. The plaintiff would, therefore, be entitled to an injunction in terms of the prayers in the plaint against Defendants 2 to 4.

17. The prayer clause in the plaint reads thus:

“73. In light of the aforesaid, it is humbly prayed that this

Hon'ble court may grant:

a. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their proprietors, partners, affiliates, successors and assigns, officers, servants, employees, and agents, and

any entity/firm/body incorporate, or any such person acting for and on behalf of the Defendant from using the trademark/ trade name "CAPITAL COMFORT INN" or any other trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's COMFORT, COMFORT INN and COMFORT Formative Trademarks stated in paragraph 26 of the plaint in relation to hospitality services and cognate and allied goods/services, including booking and advertising services relating thereto, and printed matter, stationery, etc. amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs registered trademarks including those stated in paragraph 27 of the plaint; b. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the for and on behalf of the Defendants from using the trademark/ trade name "CAPITAL COMFORT INN" or any other trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs COMFORT, COMFORT INN and COMFORT Formative Trademarks including those stated in paragraph 27 of the plaint in relation to hospitality services and cognate and allied goods/services, including booking and advertising services relating thereto, and printed matter, stationery, etc., and from doing any other thing to pass off their services and goods as those of the Plaintiff; c. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the for and on behalf of the Defendant, from using the mark "CAPITAL COMFORT INN" or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's COMFORT, COMFORT INN and COMFORT Formative Trademarks, including the trademarks stated in paragraph 27 of the plaint in any manner that takes unfair advantage of and is detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the Plaintiff‟s Comfort Formative Trademarks, name and/or style as detailed hereinabove leading to dilution thereof; d. An order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendants on account of use of marks identical, deceptively similar to or using the Plaintiffs COMFORT Formative Trademarks and a decree for the amount so found be passed in favour of the Plaintiff; e. An order of delivery up of the Defendants' materials including but not limited to labels, domain names, trade name etc. containing the Plaintiffs' COMFORT Formative Trademarks and/or any essential features thereof. f. A decree for damages of Rs. 2,00,00,050/- maybe passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants; g. An order declaring the Plaintiffs COMFORT Formative Trade Marks as well-known trademarks considering the above aspects by this Hon'ble Court; h. An order for costs of the proceedings. And any further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

18. Ms. Nautiyal submits, on instructions, that her client would not be claiming on damages and costs against Defendants 2 to 4.

19. Ms. Nautiyal clarifies that the plaintiff has given up the claim for damages and costs only for Defendants 2 to 4.

20. As such, the suit stands decreed against Defendants 2 to 4 in terms of the prayers a, b and c in the suit.

21. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

22. The application is allowed accordingly. I.A. 16848/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC) & I.A. 16954/2022 (under Order XI Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC)

23. List for hearing and disposal on 1st August 2023.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J MAY 11, 2023 ar

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Oravel Stays Limited & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation