Delhi High Court · 2025-03-12
MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. vs M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- CS(COMM)-859/2023 2025:DHC:1783
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
- Respondent
- M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th March, 2025 + CS(COMM) 859/2023 with I.A. 24016/2023 MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Subhash Bhutoria and Ms. Anuja Negi, Advocates. versus M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks of the plaintiffs, passing off and other ancillary reliefs. PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT 2. The plaintiff no.1, Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff no.2, Mr. Virender Singh Kadyan, is the promoter and managing director of the plaintiff no.1 company. 3. It is stated that the plaintiffs are amongst the leading brands of highway hotels in India and have received several awards and recognition for their high-quality services in the field of hotels and restaurants. 4. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs’ mark, ‘MANNAT’, forms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 859/2023 Page 1 of 7 By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:20.03.2025 12:37:20 an integral and essential part of the plaintiffs’ business identity. Since its adoption in the year 2008, the plaintiffs have extensively and continuously used the brand and trademark ‘MANNAT’, as part of its tradename, trading identity, domain name, social media accounts, and the mark forms an essential part of its packaging. 5. The plaintiffs have established an iconic hotel and hospitality brand, and hence the brand and trademark ‘MANNAT’ enjoys an enviable goodwill, reputation and popularity which is evident from the revenue earned by the plaintiffs’ hotels