The plaintiffs ITC Ltd. and ITC Hotels alleged that Adyar Gate Hotels wrongfully used the mark “DAKSHIN” for its standalone Chennai restaurant after expiry of their hotel operating agreement, claiming infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
The defendant asserted long, continuous adoption since 1989, concurrent trademark registration, acquiescence, and absence of Delhi jurisdiction.
The Court held that no commercial transaction or targeted business occurred in Delhi, the plaintiffs’ apprehension of future expansion was unsubstantiated, and Section 134/62 “long-arm jurisdiction” was unavailable as the cause of action arose in Chennai.
On merits, the Court further noted that both parties hold valid registrations for “DAKSHIN,” attracting Section 28(3) and 30(2)(e) protection, meaning no infringement action lies unless the defendant’s registration is first cancelled; therefore only passing-off could be examined.
Ultimately, the Court refused interim injunction for lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of prima-facie infringement.
- A plaintiff cannot rely on mere accessibility of defendant’s restaurant listings on Zomato/Instagram/EazyDiner to establish territorial jurisdiction; specific targeting and commercial transaction within the forum must be shown (Paras 35–41, 45–47).
- Reservation of a table online is not a “commercial transaction” within the forum state unless the service is actually rendered there (Para 45).
- A quia-timet jurisdictional plea requires tangible and reasonable material; a bald apprehension of future expansion into Delhi is insufficient for interim relief (Paras 57–64).
- Section 134 Trade Marks Act and Section 62 Copyright Act cannot be invoked where the cause of action arises at the place of plaintiff’s principal place of business; Sanjay Dalia principle applied (Paras 65–69).
- When both parties hold valid registrations for the same mark, Section 28(3) and Section 30(2)(e) bar an infringement claim unless the defendant’s registration is first rectified (Paras 72–75).
- Passing-off remains maintainable even where both parties are registered proprietors (S. Syed Mohideen rule reaffirmed) (Para 75)
ITC Limited Vs. Adyar Gate Hotels Limited: 4 December 2025: CS(COMM) 119/2025: 2025:DHC: 10842: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Disclaimer[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise 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]
