The Delhi High Court has asserted that since Schloss HMA Private Limited (plaintiff) is the registered proprietor of a trademark and its stylized/formative variants, and the Leela Entertainment Private Limited (defendant) uses identical or deceptively similar marks for identical hospitality services, with a common consumer base and evidence of actual confusion, such use prima facie constitutes infringement and passing off. Hence, in such circumstances, where dishonest adoption and likely irreparable injury to goodwill are shown, the court is justified in granting ex parte ad interim injunction.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the Defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from using “THE LEELA”, “THE LEELA CLUB GOA”, “LEELA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.” or any other identical or deceptively similar mark, including as part of its corporate name, domain name, social media handle, or promotional hashtag, for rendering hospitality services, till the next date of hearing.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark “THE LEELA” and its formative and stylized versions and, by virtue of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, enjoys the statutory right to exclusive use and to restrain infringement by third parties. The Bench also observed that the Defendant was using identical or deceptively similar marks for identical services, with a common consumer base, giving rise to likelihood of confusion; and the Plaintiff had also pointed out instances of actual confusion. On this basis, the Bench prima facie held that the Defendant was infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
The Bench further observed that the Plaintiff had built immense reputation in the hospitality industry and that the Defendant’s adoption of identical/deceptively similar marks for identical services was dishonest and intended to misrepresent to the public that its services had a nexus with or were affiliated to the Plaintiff. The Bench held that such conduct was causing irreparable harm and injury to the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
Therefore, finding that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiff, the Bench concluded that the Plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if interim protection was denied.
Briefly, the Plaintiff, Schloss HMA Private Limited, instituted a commercial trademark infringement and passing off action against Leela Entertainment Private Limited and sought, inter alia, exemption from pre-institution mediation, discovery, and an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The Plaintiff pleaded that it is engaged in the business of ultra-luxury hotels and resorts management and renders technical, operational, managerial, branding and advisory services in relation to hotels under the trademark “THE LEELA” and its stylized variants, including the ‘L’ device. It asserted longstanding use, extensive goodwill, assignment of the trademark portfolio in 2019 through two Deeds of Assignment dated October 16, 2019, and multiple trademark registrations in its favour.
The Plaintiff further pleaded that the Defendant, incorporated on September 28, 2024, had filed a trademark application dated July 19, 2025 on a “proposed to be used” basis in Class 43 for hospitality-related services containing the expression “THE LEELA”. The Plaintiff opposed the application and issued a cease-and-desist notice dated January 05, 2026. It was also alleged that the Defendant had opened and operated “THE LEELA CLUB” in Vagator, Goa, used the website ‘www.theleelaclubgoa.com’, maintained social media presence, and promoted hospitality and event services under the impugned mark.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s use of “THE LEELA”, “THE LEELA CLUB GOA”, and “LEELA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.” for identical hospitality services was dishonest, intended to ride upon the Plaintiff’s goodwill, and had already caused actual confusion in the market. It was contended that such use amounted to infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and passing off, causing dilution, tarnishing, and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
Appearances:
Advocates Pravin Anand and Ashutosh Upadhyaya, for the Plaintiff
NA, for the Defendant
