- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- 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
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- 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
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Hotels.com Gets Permanent Injunction Against 'HOTELCOM' for Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court
Hotels.com Gets Permanent Injunction Against 'HOTELCOM' for Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte permanent injunction restraining 'HOTELCOM' from infringing the trademark of global hotel booking service provider Hotels.com The court reiterated the principle of initial interest confusion, which states that confusion in the minds of consumers may arise at the preliminary stage.
Factual Background
Hotels.com, a leading hotel booking service provider, has a presence in several countries and runs a world-leading hotel accommodation booking platform with over 85 localized websites worldwide in 34 local languages. The associated Domain Name 'Hotels.com' is owned and operated by Expedia Inc. and has been registered since March 30, 1994.
Issues
1. Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendant's use of the impugned marks constitutes trademark infringement.
2. Initial Interest Confusion: Whether transient confusion at the initial stage is sufficient to meet the requirement of deceptive similarity.
Reasoning & Analysis
The bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that a clear case of infringement of the Plaintiff's Mark is made out, and the Defendants have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's Mark. The court held that even transient confusion at the initial stage is sufficient to meet the requirement of deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Decision
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with the court awarding INR 5 lakhs as damages and costs. The court restrained 'HOTELCOM' from infringing the trademark of (link unavailable)
Implications
The Delhi High Court's decision highlights the importance of protecting trademarks and preventing infringement. The ruling ensures that well-known trademarks like (link unavailable) are protected from unauthorized use.
Conclusion
The court's judgment in this case emphasizes the need to protect trademarks and prevent infringement. The decision is a significant victory for Hotels.com, protecting its globally recognized trademark.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Ms. Vanshika Singh, Advocates.



