Justice Amit Bansal, Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Declares 'RITZ' & 'RITZ-CARLTON' As Well-Known Trademarks
|The Delhi High Court granted a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from infringing the trademark ‘RITZ’.
The Delhi High Court declared the ‘RITZ’ and ‘RITZ-CARLTON’ marks as well-known trademarks within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act.
The Court granted a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from infringing the trademarks ‘RITZ’ and ‘RITZ-CARLTON’, as also their variants and formative marks, including ‘RITZ INN’ and ‘RITZ PLAZA’, and any other mark deceptively similar.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held, “The long duration for which the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks have been in use by the plaintiffs, wide geographical area of their use, their knowledge among the general public and their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion, publicity and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiffs, in India as well as other countries, the RITZ and RITZCARLTON marks have achieved the status of well-known trademarks. Accordingly, the plaintiffs fulfil all the criteria set out in Section 11(6) read with Section 11(7) of the Act for declaring the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks as well-known trademarks in respect of hotels and other related services in the hospitality industry.”
Advocate Pravin Anand appeared for the Plaintiffs, while Advocate Rishub Kapoor represented the Defendants.
Brief Facts
The suit was filed by The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. seeking relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trademarks and passing off of their services as those of the plaintiffs, along with other ancillary reliefs.
The defendants were found to be using marks such as "Hotel Ritz" and "Ritz Plaza", infringing on the plaintiffs' well-known trademarks.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “On the strength of the averments made in the plaint as well as the nature and volume of the documents placed on record, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have established well beyond doubt that the marks ‘RITZ’, ‘RITZ-CARLTON’, and have acquired the status of well-known trademarks within the meaning and scope of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act.”
The Bench directed, “Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in terms of prayer clauses 88(a), 88(b) and 88(c) in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Further, in terms of prayer clause 88(e) of the plaint, directions are issued to the defendants to immediately discontinue the use of websites ‘www.thehotelritz.com’ and ‘www.ritz-hotels.com’”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, in terms of prayer clause contained in paragraph 88(d) of the plaint, a decree of declaration is passed declaring the ‘RITZ’ and ‘RITZ-CARLTON’, and marks as wellknown trademarks within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act.”
Cause Title: The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. M S Hotel Ritz & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4725)
Appearance:
Plaintiffs: Advocates Pravin Anand, Vaishali R. Mittal and Gitanjali Sharma
Defendants: Advocate Rishub Kapoor