- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Division Bench Sets Aside Injunction Against Adyar Gate Hotels Over 'Dakshin' Trademark Dispute

Delhi High Court Division Bench Sets Aside Injunction Against Adyar Gate Hotels Over 'Dakshin' Trademark Dispute
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a single-judge order that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the name and mark ‘Dakshin’ for its standalone restaurant in Chennai.
The Bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur, ruled in favor of Adyar Gate after noting that it had been using the 'Dakshin' mark since 2015 without any objection. However, the matter has been remanded to the single judge for further consideration. While the final decision is still pending, the Bench clarified that Adyar Gate can only use the ‘Dakshin’ mark at its existing outlet and cannot expand its use to other locations or catering services.
"Admittedly, the appellant (Adyar Gate) has used the mark since 2015. The respondents (ITC) do not contend that this was an unauthorized use. The appellant is a registered proprietor of the mark, which has not been contested. For now, the appellant will only use the mark within the existing premises and will not expand into catering. The appellant will return to its original premises once construction is complete," the court stated.
The Division Bench directed that Adyar Gate submit its response, with the interim application scheduled for consideration before the single judge on March 18, 2025.
Adyar Gate, originally a landmark five-star hotel in Chennai’s Alwarpet neighborhood, was established in the 1970s by the TTK Group. Over the years, it underwent multiple rebrandings, including Park Sheraton and later Crowne Plaza.
ITC, which owns various trademark registrations for ‘Dakshin’ dating back to 2000, contended that it had entered into an agreement with Adyar Gate in 1985 to operate and manage the hotel in Chennai under the name ‘Welcome Group Park Sheraton.’ As part of this agreement, Adyar Gate was granted a limited right to use the ‘Dakshin’ name.
In 2004, Adyar Gate obtained its own trademark registration for ‘Dakshin’ under Class 42. At the time, since it was still a license holder with ITC, the conglomerate did not object to the registration. The arrangement continued until March 2015, after which the hotel was rebranded as Crowne Plaza Chennai Adyar Park. ITC acknowledged that it did not object to the use of ‘Dakshin’ on the premises, given its established reputation.
However, the hotel shut down in December 2023, and the building was demolished to make way for a residential project. ITC later discovered that Adyar Gate had launched a standalone restaurant under the ‘Dakshin’ name in December 2024, which led to the present dispute.
ITC argued that Adyar Gate’s move amounted to an infringement of its established brand and goodwill, particularly in the context of South Indian cuisine. On February 13, Justice Amit Bansal ruled in favor of ITC, granting an interim injunction restraining Adyar Gate from using the ‘Dakshin’ mark.
Adyar Gate challenged the order before the Division Bench, arguing that the injunction was issued without prior notice or a cease-and-desist request from ITC. It contended that the order lacked basis and was passed without giving them an opportunity to present their case.
Granting relief, the Division Bench quashed the single-judge’s interim injunction order, allowing Adyar Gate to continue using the ‘Dakshin’ mark at its existing restaurant while the matter awaits further adjudication.