Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction to The Leela, Restrains ‘Desert Leela Resort’ From Using LEELA Mark

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction to The Leela, Restrains ‘Desert Leela Resort’ From Using LEELA Mark

Introduction

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Schloss HMA Private Limited, which operates the renowned ultra-luxury hospitality brand THE LEELA. The Court restrained the defendant from using the marks “LEELA,” “DESERT LEELA RESORT,” and related formative marks for hospitality services, holding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.

Factual Background

Schloss HMA Private Limited is the lawful proprietor and successor-in-interest of the THE LEELA trademarks pursuant to assignment deeds executed in 2019 following the acquisition of the Leela hospitality business by Brookfield affiliates. The plaintiff traced adoption of the mark to 1986, when it was originally conceived by Late Captain C.P. Krishnan Nair, and demonstrated continuous, extensive, and global use for over four decades in relation to ultra-luxury hotels and resorts.

The plaintiff operates iconic properties such as The Leela Palace New Delhi, The Leela Palace Udaipur, and The Leela Ambience Gurugram Hotel & Residences, and has announced expansion projects in Rajasthan, including Jaisalmer and Ranthambore.

In November 2025, shortly after the plaintiff publicly announced its expansion into Jaisalmer through “The Leela Jaisalmer, A Luxury Desert Resort and Spa,” it discovered that the defendant, Praveen Kumar Tejwani, was operating a resort under the name “DESERT LEELA RESORT” and using the domain www.desertleelaresort.com. The defendant also used the impugned mark prominently across booking platforms such as MakeMyTrip, Agoda, and Expedia.

Procedural Background

The plaintiff instituted a commercial suit seeking injunction, along with ancillary discovery and document-related applications. Exemption from pre-institution mediation was granted owing to urgency. The matter came up on the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ex-parte ad interim relief.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s use of “LEELA” and “DESERT LEELA RESORT” for hospitality services amounted to trademark infringement.

2. Whether the impugned use was likely to cause passing off and initial interest confusion, particularly in online bookings.

3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to ex-parte ad interim injunction.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that THE LEELA has acquired formidable goodwill and worldwide recognition over four decades, supported by registrations, copyright in the stylized “L” device, substantial revenues, and international awards.

It was argued that the defendant had mala fidely adopted the identical and dominant mark “LEELA” for identical hospitality services in Rajasthan, a region where the plaintiff already has iconic palace hotels and ongoing expansion. The use of “LEELA” in the defendant’s resort name and domain was said to be calculated to divert consumers, especially foreign travellers booking online, by creating initial interest confusion.

The plaintiff emphasized that the defendant’s adoption was dishonest, as there was no plausible reason to use “LEELA” except to ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted the plaintiff’s extensive legacy in the luxury hospitality sector since 1986, supported by statutory registrations, long-standing use, and significant international recognition. The Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established exclusive rights in THE LEELA and its formative marks.

The defendant’s use of “LEELA” as the dominant feature in “DESERT LEELA RESORT” for identical hospitality services was held prima facie deceptive and likely to create confusion, especially in the context of online booking platforms where customers may be misled at the search and pre-sale stage.

The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh accepted the plaintiff’s plea of initial interest confusion, observing that such misappropriation of goodwill was particularly harmful in the hospitality industry, where online searches and booking decisions are highly reputation-driven.

Given the plaintiff’s expansion into Jaisalmer and existing strong presence in Rajasthan, the adoption of the impugned mark by the defendant in the same geographical and commercial space aggravated the likelihood of confusion and dilution.

Decision

Pending the next date of hearing, the defendant, its agents, franchisees, affiliates, and all persons acting on its behalf were restrained from using “LEELA” “DESERT LEELA RESORT”

any deceptively similar mark or formative variant the impugned mark as part of corporate name, domain name, social media handle, or promotional hashtags for hospitality and allied services.

The Court clarified that the defendant was free to continue its business, provided it did so without using the mark “LEELA” or any formative variant.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Pravin Anand and Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocates.