Tata Group Wins Interim Relief as Delhi High Court Bars Vivanta Stays from Using ‘VIVANTA’
Tata Group Wins Interim Relief as Delhi High Court Bars Vivanta Stays from Using ‘VIVANTA’
Introduction
This matter concerns a dispute over the use of the trademark “VIVANTA” by the Defendant, Vivanta Stays. The plaintiff, Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL), part of the Tata Group, operates multiple hotel brands, including Vivanta, which has become synonymous with contemporary luxury in India. The present judgment records the grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Vivanta Stays from using the mark, protecting IHCL’s proprietary rights and goodwill.
Factual Background
The Plaintiff, IHCL, incorporated in 1902, is among India’s oldest and largest hospitality companies, operating well-known brands such as Taj, SeleQtions, Vivanta, and Ginger across more than 80 locations worldwide. The VIVANTA brand was adopted by IHCL in 2008 and recognised as a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court in 2022. In April 2025, IHCL discovered that Vivanta Stays was promoting luxury villa rentals under the Vivanta name through its website and social media platforms. Despite receiving cease-and-desist notices and giving assurances to rebrand, Vivanta Stays continued using the VIVANTA mark, including under a new domain, vivantastay.in, and expanded its promotional activities online.
Procedural Background
The Plaintiff approached this Court seeking interim relief against the Defendant’s continued use of the VIVANTA mark. A single-judge Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard the matter and passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction on October 17, 2025, restraining Vivanta Stays from using the mark and taking other necessary protective measures.
Issues
1. Whether the Defendant’s use of the mark “VIVANTA” is deceptively similar to IHCL’s well-known trademark and constitutes infringement.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interim injunctive relief to prevent consumer deception and protect its goodwill.
Contentions of the Parties
The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s adoption of the VIVANTA mark was deliberate and mischievous, likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with IHCL’s hospitality business. IHCL argued that Vivanta Stays continued using the mark despite acknowledging the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights and after receiving multiple cease-and-desist notices. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant from using the mark and to remove all online and offline references, including the domain vivantastay.in. The Defendant had not filed any contesting affidavit at this stage.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the Defendant’s use of the VIVANTA mark appeared deliberate and mischievous, creating a likelihood of consumer deception. The Defendant’s conduct, including expansion of online promotion and registration of a new domain, indicated a disregard for the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights. Complaints against Vivanta Stays suggested it was a fraudulent entity, necessitating immediate protective action. The Court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, that the balance of convenience lay in its favor, and that irreparable harm would result if interim relief were not granted. The Court accordingly restrained the Defendant from using the VIVANTA mark or any deceptively similar marks online or offline, directed the removal of all references from websites, social media, and physical materials, and ordered the suspension of the domain vivantastay.in.
Implications
This case reinforces the protection of well-known trademarks and demonstrates the Court’s proactive approach in preventing consumer deception and protecting corporate goodwill. It also illustrates the judiciary’s willingness to extend interim relief in digital and online contexts, including domain management, to prevent ongoing infringement.
Order
The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Vivanta Stays from using the mark “VIVANTA” or any deceptively similar mark online or offline. The Defendant was directed to remove all references to the mark from websites, social media platforms, and physical materials. The domain vivantastay.in was ordered to be taken down GoDaddy.com LLC was instructed to lock the domain and share registrant details with IHCL. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and HDFC Bank were directed to provide KYC details linked to the Defendant within one week. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 26, 2026.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro, Ms. Nimrat Singh and Mr. Dhananjay Khanna from Anand & Anand.
