Introduction
The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., part of the Tata Group and owner of the well-known hotel brand “GINGER,” filed a civil commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against several defendants, including Ankit Sethi. The company alleged infringement of its registered trademarks, misuse of copyrighted photographs, and passing off through fake websites that impersonated its official hotel booking platform.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the GINGER trademark in Class 43 and owns the copyright in original professional photographs of its hotel properties. In late 2023, it discovered two fraudulent websites—www.gingerhotelmumbai.info and www.hotelgingermumbai.info—using its mark and photographs to impersonate the official GINGER Hotels website. These sites lured unsuspecting customers into booking fake hotel rooms, using mobile and banking details linked to the defendants.
Upon investigation, the plaintiff traced the registration and operation of the domain names to defendant no. 1, Ankit Sethi, who was allegedly operating a digital business under the name “Hackploit.” Other defendants were also found connected through common contact information, email addresses, and banking records, showing financial transactions related to the fake bookings.
Court Proceedings and Findings
The Delhi High Court had earlier granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in December 2023, directing the suspension of the impugned domains, blocking of associated bank accounts, and disclosure of KYC and ownership details by relevant telecom and banking entities. Defendants failed to respond or file written statements despite repeated opportunities.
The court examined detailed evidence, including website screenshots, financial records, and customer complaints, which confirmed that the defendants fraudulently misrepresented themselves as the plaintiff’s business, thereby committing trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violations. The court applied the doctrine laid down in Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs. Siffynet Solutions, holding that domain names are entitled to the same protection as trademarks, especially when used for commercial purposes.
Judgment
Finding no real defense or merit on the part of the defendants, the court passed a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of CPC. A decree of permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the impugned domain names and infringing the plaintiff’s IP rights. The court also awarded damages of Rs. 20 lakhs in favor of the plaintiff, to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants within four months.
Case Title: The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. Vs. Ankit Sethi
Date of Order: 3rd March, 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 882/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2266
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
