Court issues summary judgment restraining Evergreen Dealcom Pvt Ltd and others from using marks deceptively similar to "ANANTARA" in real estate projects, affirming trademark infringement and passing off.
In a significant ruling delivered on October 15, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd and others (plaintiffs) against Evergreen Dealcom Pvt Ltd and its associated entities (defendants) for trademark infringement and passing off relating to the use of the trademark "ANANTARA." The judgment was pronounced by Mr. Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., in the commercial suit CS(COMM) 267/2026.
The plaintiffs, part of the Minor Hotel Group, have been using the trademark "ANANTARA" since 2000 for their global chain of hotels, resorts, and serviced apartments. They hold registered rights in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in several classes including Class 36, which covers rental of apartments, real estate agency, and real estate management services. The plaintiffs also maintain registrations and applications for "ANANTARA" marks in multiple foreign jurisdictions.
The defendants were found to be using marks such as "ANANTARA DOWNTOWN," "ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT," "ANANTARA RESIDENCE," "ANANTARA-II," and "ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING" for their real estate projects in Tilhari, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. These marks were used in online real estate portals and social media platforms, causing confusion and misleading the public into believing an association with the plaintiffs.
Despite being served with cease-and-desist notices and the institution of pre-litigation mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, the defendants neither responded nor appeared in court. Consequently, the Court proceeded ex parte and granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Court observed that the defendants' use of the impugned marks incorporated the plaintiffs' registered trademark "ANANTARA" in its entirety as the dominant element, with additional descriptive suffixes that did not dispel the likelihood of confusion. The Court held that such use amounted to infringement under Section 29(2)(c) and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment also referred to the presumption of likelihood of confusion under Section 29(3) of the Act.
The permanent injunction restrains the defendants, their directors, promoters, agents, and others acting on their behalf from using the plaintiffs' trademark "ANANTARA" or any deceptively similar marks in any form, including as trademarks, project names, corporate names, domain names, social media handles, and advertising or promotional materials related to real estate, hospitality, residential, or allied services. The defendants are also barred from suggesting any association, license, or affiliation with the plaintiffs.
Notably, the plaintiffs withdrew their claims for damages and costs. The Court's decision underscores the protection accorded to well-established trademarks and the efficacy of summary judgment procedures in intellectual property disputes where defendants fail to contest.
This judgment adds to a series of favorable rulings for the plaintiffs in similar trademark infringement suits filed against other defendants, reinforcing the robust enforcement of intellectual property rights in India's commercial courts.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Summary judgment in commercial intellectual property suit - Defendants, despite service, failed to file written statement and proceeded ex parte - Plaintiffs established registered rights in trademark "ANANTARA" including for real estate services in Class 36 - Defendants' use of marks such as "ANANTARA DOWNTOWN", "ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT", "ANANTARA RESIDENCE", "ANANTARA-II" and "ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING" for real estate projects held infringing and amounting to passing off - Permanent injunction granted - Plaintiffs gave up damages and costs.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 29(2)(c), 29(3); Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XIII-A Rule 3, Section 151
