Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2266
Date of Order: 3rd March 2025
Case Title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited Vs. Ankit Sethi & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 882/2023
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
In the matter of The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Ankit Sethi & Ors., the Delhi High Court delivered a summary judgment on 3rd March 2025 under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in favour of the plaintiff, The Indian Hotels Company Limited, part of the Tata Group and proprietor of the “GINGER” chain of hotels. The suit was instituted to restrain infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “GINGER” in Class 43, as well as to address passing off, dilution, and copyright infringement involving original professional photographs hosted on the plaintiff’s official website.
The plaintiff operates under various prominent hospitality brands such as TAJ, VIVANTA, SELEQTIONS, and GINGER, and maintains the website www.gingerhotels.com. The “GINGER” mark, first adopted in 2004 for its 'Smart Basics' category, has been extensively used and registered in various forms, with the earliest registration dating back to December 2005. The plaintiff also owns the copyright in professionally photographed images of GINGER hotel properties, which are hosted on its official site. Over the years, the GINGER brand has earned widespread recognition and accolades, with its financial reports for FY 2022-23 reflecting revenues exceeding Rs. 300 Crores and EBITDA of Rs. 120 Crores.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff, through its brand monitoring tool locobuzz.com, discovered infringing websites—www.gingerhotelmumbai.info and www.hotelgingermumbai.info—that used the “GINGER” trademark and the plaintiff’s copyrighted images to mislead customers into believing that the websites were associated with the plaintiff’s GINGER hotels. These infringing domain names were registered in November and December 2023 respectively, and were used to impersonate the plaintiff’s brand, causing both reputational and financial damage.
The High Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction on 13th December 2023, directing the suspension of the impugned domain names and blocking the bank accounts and mobile numbers associated with the fraudulent activity. Domain registrars, banks, and telecom operators were directed to submit KYC documents and block further misuse. Investigation revealed that defendant no. 1, Ankit Sethi, operated under the alias 'Hackploit' and created the infringing websites in collusion with defendants 8, 9, and 10. Evidence included transactions made by unsuspecting customers into accounts held by the said defendants and use of common email IDs linking these individuals to the infringing operations.
The Court took judicial note of previous authoritative decisions, notably Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145, wherein the Supreme Court recognized domain names as business identifiers that enjoy protection akin to trademarks. The Court emphasized that misrepresentation by the defendants created likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers and amounted to both trademark and copyright infringement. It also held that use of a similar domain name to divert users away from the rightful owner amounts to passing off.
Defendants 1, 9, and 10 did not appear or file written statements. Defendant 8, though present in earlier hearings, failed to file a written response. The Court deemed their silence as an admission of the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, invoking Order XIII-A CPC, the Court determined that there was no prospect of a defense and that oral evidence was unnecessary.
Citing Cartier International A.G. v. Gaurav Bhatia, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 8, and Microsoft Corporation v. Rajendra Pawar, 2008 (36) PTC 697 (Del.), the Court reiterated that deliberate evasion of judicial process should not allow infringers to escape liability. Recognizing the egregious nature of the conduct and its potential to cause serious harm to the plaintiff and mislead the public, the Court awarded both compensatory and punitive damages.
Accordingly, the Court decreed a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from any further use of the GINGER trademarks, copyrighted images, or misleading domain names. It also awarded damages and costs totaling Rs. 20 Lakhs to the plaintiff, payable jointly and severally by defendants 1, 8, 9, and 10, to be paid within four months. The decree sheet was directed to be drawn up and the case was disposed of.
