Trademark Turbulence: Delhi High Court Grounds 'PLUTO TOURS' Over Branding Dispute

Delhi High Court upholds prior rights of trademark holder 'PLUTO' in travel industry.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction against PTW Holidays Private Limited, restraining them from using the mark "PLUTO TOURS" or any other mark deceptively similar to "PLUTO" or its associated device mark. The case stemmed from a trademark dispute between Pluto Travels India Private Limited—the plaintiff—and PTW Holidays, the defendant, both operating in the travel and transport sector.

Background

Pluto Travels India Pvt. Ltd., established in 2004, has been offering luxury car rentals and a broad spectrum of travel and tour-related services across India. The company has continuously used "PLUTO" as its trademark and trade name, holding valid registrations for both the word and device marks under Class 39 since 2015 and 2016, respectively.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of the mark "PLUTO TOURS" infringed its trademark rights and caused consumer confusion. It was further contended that dissatisfied customers mistakenly left negative reviews for the defendant on the plaintiff's online pages, resulting in reputational damage.

Plaintiff's Key Arguments

1. "PLUTO" is the dominant, inherently distinctive element of its branding, bearing no direct association with transport or travel services.
2. The defendant's use of the mark is not bona fide, given the prior use and established goodwill associated with "PLUTO."
3. The suffix "TOURS" adds no distinctiveness and is merely descriptive.
4. Visual and phonetic similarities between the marks have led to actual marketplace confusion.

Defendant's Contentions

The defendant argued that they had honestly adopted the mark in 2016 and catered to a different demographic—focusing on individual clients and niche travel experiences such as yoga retreats, wellness tourism, and honeymoon packages. PTW Holidays also highlighted differences in color schemes, taglines, and design elements, claiming no likelihood of confusion.

It was further submitted that "PLUTO" is a common English word and that the plaintiff was attempting to monopolize the term within Class 39 despite offering different categories of services over time.

Court's Findings

The Court, after reviewing the evidence, observed the following:

1. The plaintiff has demonstrated continuous and uninterrupted use of the "PLUTO" mark since 2004.
2. The defendant's claim of use since 2016 was unsupported, with the only document submitted (a tax invoice) bearing a GST number—though GST was not introduced until July 2017.
3. The defendant had filed a trademark application for "PLUTO TOURS" in 2022, after receiving a legal notice from the plaintiff, and eventually abandoned it.
4. The defendant failed to provide any cogent justification for adopting the mark "PLUTO," aside from its generic use as a word.
5. Given the overlapping nature of services and lack of distinctiveness in the defendant's mark, the Court found a clear case of infringement.

The Court emphasized that "PLUTO" remains the dominant part of both marks, and that minor differences in presentation or added descriptors do not mitigate the risk of confusion among consumers. It concluded that the defendant's use of "PLUTO TOURS" amounted to trademark infringement.

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.