The Delhi High Court considered a trademark infringement and passing-off action filed by ARQ Providores, a sweets and confectionery brand using the mark “ARQ” since 2018, against Schloss HMA (The Leela Group), which launched luxury hospitality services under “THE ARQ / ARQ BY THE LEELA” in 2024. Although the plaintiff established prior use, goodwill, and the defendants’ knowledge of its mark, the defendants possessed a subsisting registration for “THE ARQ” in Class 43, preventing an infringement claim but not a passing-off action. The Court held that the parties operate in allied and cognate fields catering to similar high-end consumers, creating a likelihood of confusion. However, since defendants had already commenced services, the balance of convenience warranted interim directions rather than a complete injunction. The Court ordered the defendants to use “ARQ” only as “ARQ BY THE LEELA,” discontinue their existing logo, refrain from using “ARQ” for sweets, confectioneries, catering, or in-villa restaurant services, and file a reply before the next hearing.
Case Law Held:
Vaidya Rishi India Health (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Dutt Parashar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6147:Cited by the Court to reiterate that no infringement action lies against a registered proprietor using its own registered trademark for the class in which it is registered. The principle upheld: registration acts as a statutory defence, but passing off action still survives. [Referred in the present order at Para 24–25.]
Suparshva Swabs India v. AGN International, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8239 [Relied upon to reaffirm that courts cannot restrain use of a validly registered trademark .The Court held that only passing off can be maintained even when the defendant owns a registration. [Referred in the present order at Para 24–25.]
Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1758C[ited by the defendants; the case held that where a party has obtained registration without objection, balance of convenience may tilt in its favour when use has already commenced. [Referred in the present order at Para 17.6]
Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 Cited for the principle that pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is not mandatory when urgent interim relief is sought.Applied to grant exemption from pre-litigation mediation.[eferred in the present order at Para 2.]
ARQ Providores Vs Schloss HMA Pvt. Ltd. : 17.11.2025: CS(COMM) 1227/2025: High Court of Delhi: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
[Readers are advised to exercise their own discretion as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
