While permanently restraining use of ‘ANANTARA’ for Jabalpur real estate projects, the Delhi High Court has held that descriptive suffixes did not dispel confusion where the registered mark remained the leading and essential feature. The Court noted that ‘RESIDENTIAL RESORT’, ‘DOWNTOWN’, ‘RESIDENCE’, and ‘BLOCK BUILDING’, did not dispel confusion because ‘ANANTARA’ remained the leading and essential feature of each disputed mark. The defendants’ services were identical with or allied to the registered services.
The Court applied Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the presumption of confusion under Section 29(3). It also found that adopting ‘ANANTARA DOWNTOWN’, identical to the plaintiffs’ Dubai property name, was not bona fide. The unrebutted facts established misrepresentation and likely damage to goodwill. The Court also clarified that the restraint extends to project and corporate names, trading styles, online identifiers and promotions suggesting association with the plaintiffs.
Briefly, Minor Hotel Group entities sued Evergreen Dealcom Pvt Ltd. and other defendants for using “ANANTARA” in the names of real estate projects in Jabalpur, including “ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT”, “ANANTARA-II” and “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN”. The plaintiffs stated that they adopted the mark in 2000 for hotels, resorts and spas and held Indian registrations, including for real estate-related services in Class 36. They alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Their cease-and-desist notices went unanswered, and pre-institution mediation did not proceed because the defendants did not participate.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that the defendants had not appeared or filed a written statement despite service, leaving the plaintiffs’ allegations unrebutted. However, it emphasised that the absence of a defence did not remove the Court’s duty to examine whether the plaint and supporting documents established entitlement to relief. On examining the merits, the Court found that each disputed mark reproduced “ANANTARA” in its entirety as its leading and essential feature.
The Court held that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that there was no compelling reason to require oral evidence. The affidavit-supported plaint and documents were sufficient for summary judgment. On infringement, it held that the case fell under Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, attracting the presumption of likelihood of confusion under Section 29(3). The adoption of “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN”, identical to the name of the plaintiffs’ Dubai property, could not be regarded as bona fide.
