Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered trademarks ‘GINGER’, 
(‘Ginger marks’) and the subsisting copyright in the original professional photographs of the plaintiff’s GINGER hotels, passing off, dilution, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc., Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that , the illegal and fraudulent activities of the defendants might not only cause incalculable loss to the plaintiff, but also to the large number of users/customers accessing the plaintiff’s website, who might be under an impression that the defendants’ impugned websites, were from the sub-brand of the plaintiff company, and consequently, affecting the business, goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiff’s mark.
Thus, the Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in the plaintiff’s favour and stated that the plaintiff was entitled to costs and damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs, payable by Defendants 1,8,9 and 10, jointly and severally.
Background
The plaintiff was a part of India’s biggest conglomerate, i.e., the ‘Tata Group of Companies’, and was a giant in the Indian hospitality sector that manages a huge portfolio of hotels, resorts, palaces, etc. The plaintiff opened its first hotel, i.e., Taj Mahal Palace, Bombay in the year 1903. As of today, the plaintiff, and its subsidiaries, together form a group of brands and businesses offering a world-class service in hospitality, which includes, TAJ, VIVANTA, SELEQTIONS, GINGER and Ama Stays and Trails.
In the year 2004, plaintiff launched its brand ‘GINGER’ hotels, in a new category of ‘Smart Basics’, with a primary objective of providing a superior service offering and consistent experience to travellers and thereby, transformed its ‘Smart Basics’ hotels into lean-luxe hotels. The plaintiff also holds several registrations of the mark ‘GINGER’, both as a word mark and also in the form of various device marks.
Further, the plaintiff has also been operating a dedicated website, on the internet since 23-12-2005, through which the plaintiff had extensively been promoting ‘GINGER’ hotels and services. In addition, the aforesaid website had its original professional photograph of each ‘GINGER’ hotel’s property uploaded on it, which were the ‘original artistic work’ of the plaintiff, as per Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’). The plaintiff was also the first owner of the said copyright, within the meaning of Section 17, and therefore, was also entitled to their exclusive rights in terms of Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act.
Plaintiff’s marks ‘GINGER’ due to the long and extensive use, promotional and advertisement activities through social media platforms, etc., had acquired goodwill and reputation, and were solely associated with the plaintiff in relation to its hospitality business and services.
On 26-12-2023, the plaintiff through an online portal, came across the fake website www.gingerhotelmumbai.info, which prominently displayed the plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘GINGER’ at the homepage of the website. The said website purported to be a website through which the booking in the ‘GINGER’ hotels of the plaintiff could be secured. The impugned website was registered on 21-9-2023, also displayed professional photographs of plaintiff’s hotel, i.e., GINGER Hotel, Andheri East, Mumbai.
Being aggrieved by the defendants’ infringing actions in relation to plaintiff’s mark ‘GINGER’, and also the misuse of plaintiff’s contents and original photographs, the present suit was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was evident that Defendants 1, 8, 9 and 10 were imposters, who had infringed the plaintiff’s registered trade marks and copyright. Right of the proprietor, in a domain name, warranted the same protection as those in a trade mark. The said defendants were also guilty of passing off their fake websites as the plaintiff’s.
The Court stated that use of plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘GINGER’ as part of the impugned domain names by the defendants, and operating the fake websites on the impugned domain names, which display the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ trade marks prominently, were blatant acts of infringement and passing off. By unauthorizedly misusing the plaintiff’s original professional photographs of the plaintiff’s hotel, on the impugned website, the said defendants have clearly infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in the said photographs.
Therefore, the Court stated that Defendants 1,8, 9 and 10 were engaged in illegal activities, which were potentially criminal in nature, and are aimed at deceiving unwary consumers by making them pay through their website under the false pretence of securing reservations with the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels. Therefore, the aforesaid actions of the said defendants, amount to fraudulent misrepresentation and constitute an attempt to misappropriate the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation in the market.
The Court stated that in the present case, it was manifest that actions of Defendants 1, 8, 9 and 10 in adopting and using the plaintiff’s marks, photographs and contents, forged receipts, clearly was mala fide, deliberate and intentional. Thus, a clear case of infringement of trade marks and copyright was made out. The defendant’s infringing actions were bound to cause deception and confusion in the minds of unwary consumers, who would assume the defendant’s impugned websites to have originated from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was able to make a clear case not only of infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks, but of passing off, as well.
The Court stated that in the present case, Defendants 1,8,9 and 10 were blatantly infringed the trade marks of the plaintiff and had also failed to appear before this Court. Furthermore, the illegal and fraudulent activities of the defendants might not only cause incalculable loss to the plaintiff, but also to the large number of users/customers accessing the plaintiff’s website, i.e., www.gingerhotels.com, who might be under an impression that the defendants’ impugned websites, i.e., www.gingerhotelmumbai.info and www.hotelgingermumbai.info were from the sub-brand of the plaintiff company, and consequently, affecting the business, goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiff’s mark.
Thus, the Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in the plaintiff’s favour, and stated that the plaintiff was entitled to costs and damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs, payable by Defendants 1,8,9 and 10, jointly and severally.
[The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Ankit Sethi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2097, decided on 2-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiffs: Priya Adlakha with Sucharu Gar and Shilpi Sinha, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Shivam Narang, Advocate; Santosh Kumar Rout, SC with Dharna Veragi, B.N. Mishra and Shilpa Chaursia, Advocates; Mr. NilenduVatsyayan, Advocate; Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Arvan Mittal and Debaish Mishra Advocates.
