In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited, restraining Mr. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal and others from using the marks “Cordelia Inn”, “Hotel Cordelia Inn”, or any other deceptively similar variant. The order, passed on July 28, 2025, came in response to a commercial intellectual property suit filed by the plaintiff, who owns the well-known premium cruise brand “Cordelia Cruises”.
The plaintiff, Waterways Leisure Tourism, claimed that it is the only company operating domestic premium cruise services in India, and has been using the mark “Cordelia Cruises” since its incorporation in November 2020 and registered the domain www.cordeliacruises.com in December 2020 for customer engagement as well as for its promotion and subsequently obtained trademark registrations for its device mark in Classes 39, 41, and 43 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The cruise services are promoted across leading online platforms, including MakeMyTrip, Goibibo, EaseMyTrip, and TripAdvisor.
The defendants, on the other hand, operate a land-based hotel in Rishikesh under the marks “Cordelia Inn” and “Hotel Cordelia Inn”, and registered the domain name www.hotelcordeliainn.com in August 2022. They also filed a trademark application for their logo, which was objected to by the Trade Marks Registry during examination on grounds of similarity, citing the plaintiff's earlier registered mark. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice from the plaintiff in August 2024, the defendants continued to use the impugned marks, prompting the present suit.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants' adoption of the “Cordelia” mark was dishonest and designed to ride on the goodwill associated with “Cordelia Cruises”. The plaintiff submitted evidence of extensive commercial use since 2021, significant growth in business, from INR 30.92 lakhs in 2020-21 to over INR 480 crores in 2022-23 and recognition received in the hospitality sector. It was contended that both parties operate in the same industry and target overlapping customer bases through the same digital platforms, leading to a real likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers.
The plaintiff further pointed out that the defendants retained the distinctive element “Cordelia” from the plaintiff's mark and merely added the descriptive suffix “Inn” or “Hotel”, which would not suffice to distinguish the two brands. The plaintiff argued that this was a classic case of infringement and passing off, especially considering that both parties' services, cruise tourism and hotel accommodation, fell under Class 43 and formed part of the broader hospitality industry.
The defendants asserted that “Cordelia” was not a proprietary term, but a combination of Latin and German words meaning “heart” and “pleasant” respectively. They argued that the plaintiff only had a device mark registration and no exclusive rights over the standalone word “Cordelia”. Moreover, the defendants claimed their services, being land-based, were fundamentally different from cruise services, and no actual confusion had been demonstrated.
Rejecting arguments of the defendant, the Court observed that the plaintiff was both the prior adopter and prior registrant of the mark and had successfully demonstrated continuous use since 2021. It clarified that both cruise ships and hotels fall within the realm of temporary accommodation services under Class 43 and thus cater to similar classes of consumers. The Court held that both services were “allied and cognate”, especially when promoted on identical platforms, making the possibility of consumer confusion very real.
The Court also held that the defendants' attempt to label “Cordelia” as generic was unsustainable. The Court relied on several precedents, including Automatic Electric Ltd. vs R. K. Dhawan, to reinforce the principle that a party cannot argue a term is generic while simultaneously seeking to register it. The Court also rejected the contention that since the plaintiff only has a registration for the device mark, the plaintiff had no exclusive right over the word “Cordelia”. It cited the ruling in United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs Orchid Chemicals to emphasise that even in a device mark, the dominant word in this case, “Cordelia”, would warrant protection.
The Court reasoned that the suffixes “Hotel” or “Inn” added by the defendants were merely descriptive and did not change the essential identity of the mark. Citing Supreme Court precedent in Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs Zamindara Engineering Co., the Court noted that minor changes or additions to a dominant word cannot shield an infringer. The visual elements and word placement in the defendant's logos were also found to be insufficient to differentiate their marks from the plaintiff's mark.
In its conclusion, the Court found that the defendants' continued use of the impugned marks amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. It held that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case with the balance of convenience for an interim injunction in its favour and against the defendants. It stated that if the injunction was not granted, irreparable harm would likely follow. Accordingly, the Court passed an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the marks “Cordelia Inn” or any deceptively similar variant in any form online, offline, or through social media platforms.
Additionally, the defendants were ordered to take down all references to the impugned marks from travel and accommodation websites and social media, and to suspend and transfer the domain name www.hotelcordeliainn.com and associated email accounts to the plaintiff.
This ruling serves as a strong precedent in favour of brand owners in the hospitality industry, reiterating that prior adoption and goodwill will be protected against dishonest commercial practices, even when the infringing party claims minor differentiations. The decision highlights the judiciary's proactive stance on curbing consumer confusion and ensuring the sanctity of registered trademarks.
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.
