Anantara Spa and Massage Ordered to Cease Use of "ANANTARA" Trademark and Remove References from All Platforms
In a significant ruling on trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd and its co-plaintiffs, restraining Anantara Spa and Massage from using the trademark "ANANTARA" or any deceptively similar marks. The decision, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, was delivered on August 21, 2026, in the case titled MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd v. Anantara Spa and Massage.
The plaintiffs, part of the globally recognized Minor Hotel Group, alleged that the defendant's use of the "ANANTARA" name for its spa-related services constituted trademark infringement, passing off, and trademark dilution. The court found that the defendant's marks were visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks, creating a likelihood of public confusion.
Justice Singh ruled that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience favoring them, and noted that irreparable harm was likely if the injunction was not granted. Consequently, the court issued the injunction, prohibiting Anantara Spa and Massage from using the impugned marks.
Additionally, the court directed the defendant to remove all references to the infringing marks from websites, advertisements, and online platforms within three weeks. The ruling underscores the court's commitment to upholding trademark rights and protecting the goodwill and reputation associated with established brands.
The plaintiffs, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. C.M. Lall and a team of legal experts, successfully argued that the defendant's actions were likely to dilute the reputation and goodwill of their well-known trademarks. The court's decision is expected to reinforce the protection of intellectual property rights in the hospitality sector.
Bottom Line :
Trademark Law - Plaintiffs successfully obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the trademark "ANANTARA" or deceptively similar marks for services such as spas, massages, or wellness centers, on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, and trademark dilution.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd v. Anantara Spa and Massage, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2967889
