The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED vs. JOHN DOE AND OTHERS [CS(COMM) 370/2024 dated 07.05.2024] held that the Plaintiff (The Indian Hotels Company Limited) made out a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants, including John Doe, for infringing the Plaintiff's trademarks, copyrights, and passing off by operating deceptive websites and perpetrating financial fraud on the public.
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, The Indian Hotels Company Limited, is part of the Tata group of companies. The Petitioner is engaged in the hospitality industry and manages a large portfolio of hotels, resorts, etc. across many countries under various brands, including the brand "GINGER".
The Petitioner is the registered proprietor of the trademarks "GINGER", "", "", "" and "" in Class 43 for temporary accommodation and related food/beverage services. The Petitioner claims statutory and common law rights in these trademarks through extensive and exclusive use, due to which they have acquired a distinctive character associated solely with the Petitioner.
The Petitioner also claims copyright in the original professional photographs of its GINGER hotels under Section 2(c) read with Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Petitioner owns the domain gingerhotels.com and operates the website www.gingerhotels.com which extensively displays the Petitioner's brand, trademarks and copyrights to promote its hotels and facilitate online reservations worldwide. The Petitioner's hotels are also authentically listed on several major travel booking websites.
In April 2024, the Petitioner received complaints about fraud related to the impugned websites - www.gingertreeresortsuite.com, www.gingershotel.com, etc. which prominently displayed the Petitioner's trademarks and photographs. These websites, without the Petitioner's authorization, offered reservation services for the Petitioner's hotels.
The Respondent No. 1 is an unknown person/entity who contacts customers through the impugned websites by displaying genuine photos of the Petitioner's hotels and impersonating the Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 requests customers to share sensitive information like OTPs, card details, etc. and siphons off money from their accounts.
The infringing activities involve unauthorized use of the Petitioner's trademarks in domain names, websites, social media handles, etc. to create a false association with the Petitioner. This tarnishes the Petitioner's long-standing goodwill and reputation.
The Petitioner filed the present suit aggrieved by the Respondents' trademark/copyright infringement, passing off, and damage to its reputation due to the fraudulent activities.
Issue
Whether the Plaintiff made out a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants for trademark and copyright infringement, and passing off.
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the Petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case of:
Infringement of the Petitioner's trademarks and copyrights by the unauthorized use on the impugned websites.
Passing off the Petitioner's marks by the Respondent No. 1's misrepresentation of being associated with the Petitioner.
The Court observed that the Respondent No. 1 was perpetuating serious financial fraud on the public by misrepresenting association with the Petitioner through the impugned websites, with malafide intent to siphon off customers' money.
The Court held that the Respondent's systematic misappropriation of the Petitioner's trademarks and original photographs on the impugned websites, social media, UPI IDs, etc. was an attempt to falsely appear associated with the Petitioner to defraud the public, causing substantial harm to the Petitioner's reputation and goodwill.
Considering the prima facie case, irreparable loss to the Petitioner's reputation, and balance of convenience favoring the Petitioner, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from:
Infringing the Petitioner's registered trademarks.
Using the Petitioner's copyrighted photographs.
Passing off by falsely associating with the Petitioner.
The Court further directed various parties to suspend/block access to the impugned websites, phone numbers, bank accounts and UPI IDs used in perpetrating the fraud, and to share relevant details to aid investigation of the perpetrators.
Relevant Sections:
"Section 2(c) read with Section 14(c) of the Copyrights Act, 1957"
______________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
Comments