Table of Contents
Taj Hotels’ Trademark: Delhi HC Fines Man for Infringing Taj Hotels’ Trademark
Recently the Delhi High court has passed an order to fine ₹15 lakh to a man whose company violates the trademark and copyright related to TATA’s Taj Hotels [The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs. Manoj].
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the defendant has used the trademark ’TAJ’ which was registered in favor of Taj hotels and was using logo, photographs any other content available on its website.
The defendant had also used the photographs of Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai of similar sorts.
These were carried out among the public to popularize his own business namely Taj Iconic Membership.
The Court held thus Tata group’s Indian Hotels Company Limited indeed the mark ‘TAJ’ with which the mark TA is associated in the hospitality industry is the registered proprietor of the mark ‘TAJ’.
It has been using the said marks for all these years nonstop and literally thrown a huge amounts of money in designing, advertisement and promotions of the said marks.
The Court also made its determination on the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in ‘TAJ’.
‘Thus it is evident that the use of the various contents and photographs available on the plaintiff’s website by the defendant for its business related activities cause the consumers and members of the trade to be led astray to believe that the defendant is directly associated with the plaintiff,’ the Court ruled.
The Court also mentioned that Manoj along with being guilty of infringement of Taj’s marks and photographs, had also committed a criminal activity of impersonation as a plaintiff and cheating a jeweller of one hundred gold coins valued ₹ 51 lakh.
With respect to the above, it had in its favour The Indian Hotels Company Limited.
The order was passed ex-parte because the defendant did not make any response or filed any appearance for the defense of the act done by him.
Taj got to know about the infringement in the year 2022 when the defendant’s representative contacted the Taj’s representative inquiring as to whether they Taj is interested in transacting with the defendant business.
In this regard, the plaintiff’s representatives had to be invited for a meeting with the defendant. This came as shock to the plaintiff when they discovered that the defendant had incorporated the plaintiff’s registered trademarks TAJ as the part of their business name, domain www. tajiconicmembership. The accessories include the company’s business identification domain such as com, website, and business email identification tag such as email ID etc.
Taj also came to know about one notices from the Malviya Nagar Police Station, New Delhi with the copy of the FIR stating one jeweller named Puneet Mehra was cheated by the defendant for an amount of ₹51 lakh. The defendant invited Puneet Mehra to its office on the pretext of fashington him as a plaintiff which was in fact an impersonation and then administered him spiked coffee. After this, Puneet Mehra complained of dizzy spell, and the representative of the defendant, who was present at the scene, grabbed the packet containing hundred pieces of gold coins from Puneet Mehra.
With the above in mind Taj filed the present suit.
The Court by an dated October 6, 2022, had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in the favour of Taj, and thereby, restricting the defendant from using the mark ‘TAJ’, the accompanying device either alone or along with the particulars or in part and parcel of the corporate name or logo.
On the other hand, crime branch of police raided the defendant’s premises in Delhi and conducted the sealings.
It led to the hearing of the case the Court ex parte because the defendant never entered an appearance.
The Court in its judgment further observed that the trademark ‘TAJ’ was registered by the plaintiff as early as in 1903 provided to hospitality industry.
>Moreover, it has been used by the plaintiff starting from the year 2016. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mentioned aforesaid marks and the details of the same are available in records. The plaintiff is the owner of the copyrights associated with logo/device.
The Court noted that arguing from the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff it had been able to prove that it has a goodwill and reputation in respect of the mark ‘TAJ’ as far as the Indian markets were concerned.
”The defendant has been found to have used the plaintiff’s marks and various content and photographs found on the plaintiff website. In particular this honourable court found out that the defendant has been misusing the plaintiff registered trademarks as part of its business name, domain and website. Even as per Google photographs of the defendant, reveal unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks,” the Court said.
Therefore, the defendant has no reason or any explanation as to why they chose to adopt the registered trademarks ‘TAJ’, and other content and photographs that the plaintiff has provided on its website.
The plaintiff has not transacted any business with the defendant and has not given any authorisation to the defendant to use the said marks, logos, photographs and content, added the Court.
This the Honourable Court found that that the action of the defendant in adopting the plaintiff’s marks, photographs, and content were fraudulent, unlawful, deliberate, and intentional, thus amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s rights, Due to the defendant’s infringing activities, it was envisaged that end consumers were likely to develop confusion as to assuming that the defendant’s services and packages emanated from the plaintiff.
The Court also noticed that the defendant made a conscious decision not to file its written statement and also has not entered an appearance to defend its actions and the Court also concluded that the defendant is not in a position to defend the plaintiff’s claim in any real sense.
The Court, in its judgment while passing in favour of Taj, stated further continue : “It is to be noted that not filing any defence by the defendant shows the malafides and guilt of the defendant, that he has no plausible explanation for his intentional, illegal and infringing acts.”
Mr. Pravin Anand with advices Achuthan Sreekumar, Rohil Bansal & Swastik Bisarya represented Taj / Indian Hotels.
