A Delhi Commercial Court has permanently restrained Surat-based Kapiraj Corporation and its partners from using the trademark ‘ANTARA’ or any deceptively similar mark in connection with their real estate project ‘Shivant Antara’, holding that it infringed the registered trademark rights of Antara Senior Living Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Max India Limited. The Court also awarded ₹5 lakh as nominal damages to the plaintiff and directed the defendants to remove all references to the infringing mark from both online and offline platforms within their control.
The Court observed that Antara Senior Living had been using the ‘ANTARA’ trademark since 2011 for senior living residences and related healthcare and wellness services and held valid trademark registrations across multiple classes. The plaintiff established that it had invested approximately ₹25 crore over the past seven to eight years in promoting the brand, which had acquired significant goodwill and distinctiveness.
The dispute arose after the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had launched a residential project in Surat under the name ‘Shivant Antara’, registered with the Gujarat RERA in 2024, and promoted it across various real estate portals and social media platforms. The plaintiff contended that the prominent use of ‘ANTARA’ in the project name was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the project was associated with or endorsed by Antara Senior Living.
The defendants failed to contest the proceedings despite being served with summons. Their defence was struck off after they did not file a written statement within the statutory period, and the matter proceeded ex parte.
The Court held that the plaintiff was the prior user and registered proprietor of the ‘ANTARA’ trademark and found the defendants’ mark ‘Shivant Antara’ to be deceptively similar, observing that its use was likely to create confusion among consumers. It concluded that the defendants’ conduct amounted to trademark infringement and dilution of the plaintiff’s distinctive brand identity.
While the Court declined to order an inquiry into actual losses suffered by the plaintiff due to the absence of evidence quantifying damages, it awarded ₹5 lakh as nominal damages, observing that defendants who choose to stay away from court proceedings should not be allowed to benefit from their non-participation. The Court further directed that the amount be paid within 30 days, failing which it would carry 12% annual interest until realization. Costs of the suit were also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.