Fact of the Case:
Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited and its managing director, Mr. Virender Singh Kadyan (plaintiffs), filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against M/s Mannat Dhaba and others (defendants) for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, who have been using the brand "MANNAT" since 2008 for their hotel and restaurant business, alleged that the defendants were operating restaurants under deceptively similar names such as "MANAT DHABA," "MANNATT DHABA," and others on the Delhi-Dehradun highway. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were deliberately copying their marks and goodwill to mislead consumers into believing that their establishments were associated with the plaintiffs.
Procedural Background (in brief):
The suit was filed in December 2023, and the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs on 4th January 2024. Despite service, the defendants did not file any written statement, leading to the closure of their right to file the same on 21st August 2024. The plaintiffs later submitted that defendants no. 2 and 3 had changed their branding, so no reliefs were pressed against them, and they were removed from the array of parties. Defendants no. 1 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte.
Judgments referred in case with complete citation and context:
The Court referred to Foodlink F and B Holdings India Private Limited v. Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4719. In that judgment, the Court highlighted that the test for consumer confusion is based on the perspective of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. If such a consumer, after encountering both marks at different times, wonders whether they are connected, then "initial interest confusion" is established. This principle was applied here to show that the defendants’ use of deceptively similar marks was likely to mislead the public.
Reasoning of Court:
The Court noted that since defendants no. 1 and 4 did not file any written statement or affidavit of admission/denial, the plaintiffs' averments and documents were deemed admitted as per Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The Court observed that the defendants had slavishly imitated the plaintiffs’ "MANNAT" marks and branding for identical services (restaurant operations), leading to a likelihood of confusion and misrepresentation to the public. The Court concluded that the defendants' actions amounted to clear trademark infringement and passing off, with mala fide intent to ride on the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.
Decision:
The Court decreed a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants no. 1 and 4, restraining them from using the infringing marks or any deceptively similar branding. The plaintiffs did not press for other reliefs, and the pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title: Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited Vs Mannat Dhaba
Date of Order: 12th March 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 859/2023
Neutral Citation: Not specified in the document
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
