The Delhi High Court has recently restrained a hospitality company from using the mark “Vivanta” and also imposed ₹6 lakh costs on the company in a trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Group’s Indian Hotels Company Limited.
Single-judge Justice Amit Bansal noted that the defaulter company, Vivanta Hospitality Private Limited used the trademark ‘Vivanta’ in its trade name ‘Vivanta Vacation Club’ that was similar to the mark of the hotels run by the ‘Tata Group’.
Similarly, the Court stated that once it was done with an intent to begin the venture of its business by drawing an association with Indian Hotels and for its goodwill and reputation.
The Court ordered that “Insofar as delivery up for the purpose of destruction, as sought in prayer clause (v) is concerned, all the seized goods bearing the mark “VIVANTA” in the premises of the defendant shall be destroyed by the defendant in the presence of the plaintiff’s representative.”
The order was passed in a suit filed by Indian Hotels Company Limited seeking the relief of permanent order restraining the defendant from infringing the trademark of the plaintiff, passing off, and other ancillary reliefs.
Particularly, the Court noted that the hospitality company not only took unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Indian Hotels’ Vivanta mark, but also cheat unwary consumers of their association with the latter.
The Court said, that this would also lead to the dilution and damage to the Indian Hotels’ mark.
The counsel for Indian Hotels argued that it first produces and adopt the mark ‘Vivanta’ for its hotels and other services in the year 2008 and that it is the registered owner of the trademark.
It was added that, 35 Vivanta hotels across 33 destinations along with a website dedicated to its hotels under the brand name Vivanta.
In an investigation carried out by an Indian Hotels investigator, it was disclosed that there were more than 100 consumer complaints made by customers, who got under the impression that the defendant company was associated with the Indian Hotels.
The Court noted that “The report of the Local Commissioner shows that that the defendant is engaged in the business similar to the plaintiff, under the trade name identical/deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The inventory prepared by the Local Commissioner shows that a large stock of infringing material was found at the premises of the defendant. Photographs have been filed along with the Report showing that the defendant is using the name “VIVANTA VACATION CLUB” in its ordinary course of business prominently. A domain name may, therefore, have all the characteristics of a trademark and could result in an act of passing off. Similarly, the use of “VIVANTA VACATION CLUB” as a part of their trade name is also likely to deceive unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiffs.”
Considering the fact the Court directed that the plaintiff deposited the Court fee and also sustain expenses in executing the commission, costs of ₹6 lakh are imposed on the defendant, which shall be paid by May 31, 2023.
The court added that “In view thereof, counsel for the plaintiff does not press for relief of rendition of accounts, damages and other remaining reliefs sought in the plaint.”
