Below is the fully-developed, simplified, yet legally accurate analytical research paper based on the uploaded judgment. It follows your structure, avoids bullet points and numbering, and keeps language accessible while retaining legal reasoning and statutory references.
Brief Introductory Headnote and Summary
This case deals with a commercial trademark dispute between ITC Limited and Adyar Gate Hotels Limited over the use of the term “DAKSHIN” for a South-Indian specialty restaurant. The core conflict arose when the defendant continued using the mark DAKSHIN after the business arrangement between the parties ended, and further opened a standalone restaurant under the same name. ITC claimed exclusive ownership over the mark and sought injunction, arguing trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violation. The defendant denied these allegations and asserted ownership based on its own registered trademark and long-term use of the mark.
The Court had to examine not only the trademark rights of both parties but also the question of territorial jurisdiction. The dispute required a careful interpretation of the Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act and the Code of Civil Procedure with reference to online presence, concurrent trademark rights, acquiescence and principles governing quia-timet suits.
Factual Background
ITC Limited and its affiliate ITC Hotels Limited operate hotel businesses across India. As part of its hospitality branding strategy, ITC adopted the term “DAKSHIN” for premium South-Indian dining in 1989 at a Chennai property owned by the defendant. The parties had contractual arrangements regulating operations. Over time, ITC expanded the DAKSHIN-branded restaurants across major cities. The defendant continued using the mark under arrangement until 2015.
After the operating agreement ended, the defendant partnered with another hotel chain and used the name DAKSHIN for the Chennai restaurant. In 2024, the defendant opened a new standalone restaurant under the same name. ITC treated this as unauthorized use and sought a permanent injunction.
Procedural History
The suit was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking injunction and ancillary relief. Initially, an ex-parte injunction order was passed restraining the defendant from using the trademark. The defendant appealed, and the Division Bench set aside that injunction, directing the Single Judge to hear both parties before issuing any interim direction.
Subsequently, pleadings were completed, and both sides filed extensive documents including registration certificates, historical records and legal correspondence. Evidence of bookings through online platforms like Zomato and social media promotion was also brought before the Court. After arguments, judgment on the interim application was reserved.
Core Legal Dispute
The core legal controversy centered on two primary issues:
Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, considering that the alleged infringement took place physically in Chennai though the defendant’s restaurant was accessible through online platforms nationwide.
Whether ITC could restrain the defendant from using the “DAKSHIN” trademark despite both parties holding registered trademarks, and despite the defendant’s continued long-standing usage.
The Court also examined delay, acquiescence, passing off, concurrent user, and the impact of the online presence of the defendant.
Detailed Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It emphasized that jurisdiction must be established before assessing interim relief. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad (2024) 4 SCC 696, which clarified that courts must form a prima facie view on maintainability before granting a temporary injunction.
The plaintiff asserted jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and Section 62 of the Copyright Act on the ground that the defendant’s marketing was accessible in Delhi and could influence customers nationwide.
The Court, relying on Banyan Tree Holding (2009) and subsequent Delhi High Court precedents including Cable News Network (2023) and Impresario Entertainment (2018), held that mere online accessibility is insufficient to constitute jurisdiction. There must be intentional targeting and demonstrable commercial transactions within the jurisdiction.
Reservation through platforms like Zomato or Instagram visibility did not constitute a completed commercial transaction in Delhi because dining must physically occur in Chennai.
The Court rejected the argument of “dynamic effect” (reputation injury felt in another jurisdiction) as the plaintiffs failed to prove any tangible harm caused in Delhi.
On the plea of quia timet, the Court held that a bare apprehension of future expansion to Delhi was speculative without supporting evidence. Reference was made to New Life Laboratories (2023), where a similar stance was adopted.
The Court then examined the merits. Both sides had valid registrations for the mark under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act. Under Section 28(3), neither party could claim exclusivity over the other when similar marks were registered. Section 30(2)(e) provides statutory defense where two parties have similar registered marks.
Thus, infringement action was not maintainable unless the defendant’s registration was cancelled. No rectification petition had been filed. The Court recognized the remedy of passing-off remains available under Syed Mohideen v. Sulochana Bai (2016) but held ITC failed to establish deception or misrepresentation at the interim stage.
Historical collaboration suggested coexistence and acquiescence under Section 33. Delay weakened ITC's claim of urgency.
Thus, the Court held that no prima facie case for injunction was made out.
Decision
The Court denied interim injunction on the grounds that:
It lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Even on merits, no prima facie case existed given concurrent trademark ownership, absence of rectification, lack of demonstrated misrepresentation and evidence of acquiescence.
The suit itself was not dismissed; however, interim relief was refused.
Concluding Note
This judgment demonstrates the evolving landscape of jurisdiction in digital and trademark disputes. It clarifies that online presence alone does not create jurisdiction and reinforces the statutory framework regarding concurrent trademark ownership. The Court balanced legal rights with commercial history and emphasized that interim injunctions are not granted as a matter of course, especially where jurisdiction is doubtful and mutual rights in the mark exist.
Case Details
Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr. Vs. Adyar Gate Hotels Limited
Order Date: 4 December 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 119/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:____
Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Suggested Article Titles
- "Trademark Battles in the Digital Age: Lessons from the ITC v. Adyar Gate Case"
- "Jurisdiction, Concurrent Marks and Acquiescence: A Study of Dakshin Trademark Litigation"
- "Online Presence and Territorial Jurisdiction: The Delhi High Court’s Evolving Standards"
- "Trademark Coexistence and Passing Off: Judicial Approach in Hospitality Branding Conflicts"
- "From Collaboration to Competition: Legal Implications of Long-Term Business Relationships in Trademark Law"
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Delhi High Court Declines Interim Injunction in ITC Limited v. Adyar Gate Hotels Trademark Dispute
Order dated 4 December 2025, in CS(COMM) 119/2025, passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, High Court of Delhi.
The Delhi High Court has rejected ITC Limited’s plea for interim injunction against Adyar Gate Hotels Limited in a trademark dispute involving the well-known restaurant name "DAKSHIN". ITC alleged infringement of its registered trademark and passing off, claiming that the defendant unlawfully continued using the mark "DAKSHIN" even after the expiry of the earlier operational agreement between the two parties.
The Court noted that both parties held valid trademark registrations for the term "DAKSHIN" under Class 42 and referred to Section 28(3) and Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, which protect concurrent registered users from infringement claims unless a rectification process invalidates one of the registrations. The Court further observed that ITC had not filed any rectification petition against the defendant’s registration, weakening its infringement claim.
A major factor influencing the decision was territorial jurisdiction. ITC argued that online visibility of the defendant’s restaurant through platforms such as Zomato and Instagram constituted commercial presence in Delhi. However, the Court held that mere online accessibility did not establish jurisdiction unless the defendant specifically targeted customers in Delhi and concluded commercial transactions within the jurisdiction. Since the restaurant operated solely in Chennai and no evidence showed active business in Delhi, jurisdiction was not made out.
Additionally, the Court noted ITC’s long period of silence despite continued use of the name by the defendant, suggesting acquiescence.
While refusing interim relief, the Court clarified that the suit itself would continue, and the plaintiff may pursue legal remedy including rectification proceedings if advised.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi.
No comments:
Post a Comment