Ravishankar, Director and CEO Anantara Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
and Anantara Hospitality Pvt Ltd (Appellant) v. M and H
Management Ltd, Minor International Public Co. Ltd
(Respondent) was an appeal by Ravishankar before the High Court of
Karnataka against an ex parte ad injunction granted by the trial
court restraining the use of the domain name
"www.anantara.in" as a trade mark/corporate name on
demonstration that there was passing off action as the logo used
was similar and identical to the Respondent's logo due to their
trans border reputation.
The Appellant in this case is a company registered under the
Companies Act of 1956, and is involved in the hospitality business.
They contended that they had got the impugned domain name
registered on 12.7.2005, and soon after, people from all over the
world started booking their resorts through their website. It was
stated that without the domain name it would be difficult for the
Appellant to carry on its business.
The First and the Second Respondents are companies incorporated
under the laws of Mauritius and Thailand, respectively. The second
respondent, is the parent company and it operates and manages
hotels including those under the Anantara trade mark.
The Appellant's case, was mainly argued on two ground,
that the Trial Court had committed a grave error in injuncting
the Appellants from running the business in the name and style of
'Anantara'. The Appellants further stated that on account
of being prior user, they could not have been injuncted.
that the logo used by the Appellants was distinct from that of
the Respondents. Placing reliance on Uniply Industries v.
Unicorn Plywood and McDonald's Corporation and Anr v.
Sterling's Mac Fast Food, the Appellant argued that
although the word "Anantara" was similar to the
Respondent's mark, there was a distinction in the lettering of
the word and also the symbol was different.
The Respondents laid down their contentions thus:
That they had a trans-border reputation, and injunction was
granted since the said trans-border reputation was demonstrated by
When there is a similarity, it has to be noted that there is a
passing of action and the logo used by the Appellant was similar
and identical, reliance was placed on Satyam Infoway Ltd v
Sifynet Solutions (p) Ltd.
Wide publications in magazines like "Holiday Asia"
and other magazines, which are widely circulated in India also
reveal that the Respondents have been actively involved, much prior
to 2005, in the market.
Further , even without business in India, the Respondents could
seek injunction as the word "Anantara" was being commonly
used by the Appellants. Customers and new subscribers of the
Respondents entertained a doubt and were misled by the use of the
name by the Appellants.
The High Court of Karnataka, opined that in the instant case,
except the word 'Anantara' which was common to both, the
logo and other words/marks used were distinguishable and also the
element of deception was not apparent. Further, although
trans-border reputation was earned by the Respondents, it appeared
that they had not commenced their business in India.
Also, in the Mc Donald's case cited above, it was held that
when there is a distinction between the two trade marks, although
some word is common in both, there may not be infringement of the
registered trade mark. In the present case, the distinguishable
features in both the logos were different.
The Court also stated that the trial Court had jumped to a
conclusion that there was a passing off action and had wrongly
proceeded to pass the impugned order. Thus, in light of the
abovementioned reasons, the impugned order of the trial court was
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).