Mhg Ip Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. vs Evergreen Dealcom Pvt Ltd & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~O-52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010100212026
+ CS(COMM) 267/2026
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1 . MHG IP HOLDING SINGAPORE PTE LTD
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SHOBHIT
KHATTRI
2 ALEXANDRA ROAD#05-04/05
DELTA HOUSE,
SINGAPORE, 159919
.....PLAINTIFF NO.1
2 . M & H MANAGEMENT LIMITED
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SHOBHIT
KHATTRI
C/O DTOS LIMITED,
19 CYBERCITY, 10TH FL.
STANDARD CHARTERED TOWER,
EBENE, MAURITIUS
.....PLAINTIFF NO.2
3. MHG MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SHOBHIT
KHATTRI
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
C/o GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR,
WORLDMARK 1, ASSET AREA 11, AERO CITY,
HOSPITALITY DISTRICT, IGI AIRPORT,
SOUTH-WEST DELHI, NEW DELHI,
DELHI, INDIA, 110037
.....PLAINTIFF NO.3
(Through: Mr. Amit Panigrahi, Mr. Samanyu Bhatnagar, Mr.Sahil
Arora and Ms. Ishikaa Seth, Advocates.)
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
versus
1. EVERGREEN DEALCOM PVT LTD.
B. NO. 6, SOUTH CIVIL LINES, JABALPUR,
NEAR DSOI KOBRA GROUND,
MADHYA PRADESH - 482001, INDIA
Also at:
ROOM NO. 027, GROUND FLOOR 1,
BRITISH INDIAN STREET, KOLKATA,
WEST BENGAL - 700069, INDIA
ALSO AT:
ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT
ANANTARA MOUZA TILHARI
KH NO. 267/(1,2,3,4,5), 280/1, 283, 284,285/1
288(1,2), 289, 290/(1,2), 291(1,2), 292,293 NO. B.231,
P.H. NO. 28/12 MANDLA ROAD, JABALPUR,
MADHYA PRADESH - 482001, INDIA
Also at:
NATIONAL HIGHWAY, 12 A,
VILLAGE TILHARI, JABALPUR,
MADHYA PRADESH - 482001, INDIA
.....DEFENDANT NO.1
2. PA WAN JAISWAL ALIAS PAV AN JAISW AL
DIRECTOR
EVERGREEN DEALCOM PVT. LTD.
ROOM NO. 027, GROUND FLOOR 1,
BRITISH INDIAN STREET, KOLKATA,
WEST BENGAL - 700069, INDIA
Also at:
BUNGALOW NO. 6, CIVIL LINES,
JABALPUR - 482001, MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA
.....DEFENDANT NO.2
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
3. V ARUN JAISW AL
DIRECTOR
EVERGREEN DEALCOM PVT. LTD.
ROOM NO. 027, GROUND FLOOR 1,
BRITISH INDIAN STREET, KOLKATA,
WEST BENGAL - 700069, INDIA
.....DEFENDANT NO.3
4. ANANTARA DOWNTOWN
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR: MS PAYAL JAISWAL
BESIDE DMART, TILHARI, JABALPUR,
MADHYA PRADESH - 482002, INDIA
ALSO AT:
NB 231, PHN 25, KHASRANO. 71/1/1/1/1,
VILLAGE TILHERI, JABALPUR - 482020,
MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA
.....DEFENDANT NO.4
5. PAYAL JAISWAL
BUNGALOW NO. 6, CIVIL LINES,
JABALPUR - 482001, MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA
.....DEFENDANT NO.5
(Through: Ex- parte.)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
% 15.10.2026
I.A. 28779/2026 (under Order XIII-A Rule 3 read with Section 151 of
the CPC) in CS(COMM) 267/2026
1. The present application is being filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Order XIII-A Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), seeking a
summary judgment against the defendants.
2. The plaintiffs are part of the Minor Hotel Group. As per them, they
adopted the trademark “ANANTARA” in the year 2000 for hotels, resorts
and spas, and that the first property under the mark opened in 2001 at Hua
Hin, Thailand. The plaintiffs claim that they now own, operate or manage
more than 60 hotels, resorts and serviced apartments under the said mark
across Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe. These include “Anantara
Jewel Bagh” at Jaipur and “Anantara Downtown Dubai”. In India, the
plaintiffs hold registrations for the word mark “ANANTARA” and its label
formatives in Classes 3, 35, 36, 43 and 44, apart from several pending
applications. The plaintiffs also claim registrations of the said mark in
foreign jurisdictions, including Mongolia, Thailand, Indonesia, Switzerland,
Malaysia, Israel, Laos, Tunisia, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia,
Singapore, the European Union, Bhutan, Mexico, Bahrain, Korea and
Kazakhstan, as well as through the Madrid system.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 is a company acting
through its directors, i.e., defendant nos. 2 and 3. Defendant no. 4 is a
proprietorship concern of defendant no. 5, who is stated to be the wife of
defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs submits that these defendants, acting in
concert, have been developing and marketing real estate projects at Tilhari,
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh under the marks “ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL
RESORT”, “ANANTARA-II”, “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN”,
“ANANTARA RESIDENCE” and “ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING A,
B, C”. The said projects are stated to be promoted on platforms such as
99acres.com, Magicbricks.com, Housing.com, Justdial.com, Facebook and
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
Instagram. It is further averred that the mark “ANANTARA
DOWNTOWN” is identical to the name of the plaintiffs’ property at Dubai.
According to the plaintiffs, the impugned use amounts to infringement as
well as passing off.
4. Before instituting the suit, the plaintiffs issued cease-and-desist
notices dated 05.09.2024, 12.06.2025 and 08.08.2025, which went
unanswered. The plaintiffs also initiated pre-institution mediation under
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Since the defendants did
not participate, the mediation ended in non-starter reports dated 17.11.2025
(qua defendant nos. 1 and 2) and 02.12.2025 (qua defendant nos. 4 and 5).
5. The suit was called out for hearing on 18.03.2026, On that date, the
following ex parte ad interim directions were passed in paragraph no. 22 of
the order:-
“ i. The defendants, their directors, promoters, franchisees, associates,
licensees, agents, successors, assigns, members, employees, and all other
acting on their behalf are restrained from using in any manner, directly
or indirectly, plaintiffs registered trademarks, or any mark identical with
or deceptively similar thereto, including but not limited to ANANTARA
DOWNTOWN, ANANTARA RESIDENCES, ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL
RESORT, ANANTARA-II, ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING, ANANTARA
RESIDENCE, or any other mark comprising or containing the word
“ANANTARA” as a whole or as an essential feature as a trademark,
service mark, brand name, trading style, project name, corporate name
or part thereof, in relation to real estate, hospitality, residential,
commercial or allied services, or in any other manner whatsoever;
ii. The defendants and all others acting on their behalf are restrained
from using in any manner, any domain name(s), URL(s), website
address(es), email address(es), social media handle(s), usemame(s),
profile name(s), page name(s) or any other online identifier
incorporating the plaintiffs trademark “ANANTARA” or any variant
thereof, including but not limited to ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL
RESORT, ANANTARA-II, ANANTARA DOWNTOWN, ANANTARA
RESIDENCE, ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING, or any other mark
identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ “ANANTARA”
trademarks, whether as a primary domain, sub-domain, redirect,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
metadata, hashtag or in any other digital or electronic form whatsoever;
iii. The defendants and all others acting on their behalf are restrained
from advertising, marketing or promoting their projects, goods or
services in any manner whatsoever, whether through print, electronic,
digital, outdoor, broadcast or social media platforms, and thereby
representing, expressly or by necessary implication, to members of the
public and the trade that the defendants are in any manner associated,
connected, sponsored, licensed, endorsed or affiliated with the plaintiffs,
by use of the mark “ANANTARA” or any mark identical with or
deceptively similar thereto, including but not limited to ANANTARA
RESIDENTIAL RESORT, ANANTARA-II, ANANTARA DOWNTOWN,
ANANTARA RESIDENCE, ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING, whether as
a trademark, project name, corporate name, trading style, domain name
or any part thereof, in any manner whatsoever.”
6. The defendants were served on 21.05.2026, yet none of them entered
appearance. The matter was then taken up by the Registrar Court. By order
dated 18.09.2026, the Joint Registrar recorded that no written statement had
been filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 5 within the prescribed period,
and their right to file the written statement was accordingly closed.
Thereafter, on 21.09.2026, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte .
It is also seen that no reply has been filed to I.A. 6939/2026. The order dated
18.03.2026 has not been assailed and continues to operate.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that the
plaintiffs’ trademark “ANANTARA” enjoys considerable goodwill and
reputation, which has been recognised in several orders passed by this Court.
In support, he places reliance upon the orders referred to in the plaint, and
during the course of hearing, he has also handed over a compilation of
interim and final orders.
8. It is pointed out that one such suit, bearing CS(COMM) 919/2024, has
been decreed by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025, whereby the
defendants therein were permanently injuncted from using the plaintiffs’
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
trademark or any other mark that would, in any manner, infringe the same.
Reference has also been made to the following orders, MHG IP Holding
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Mangalam Construction Company LLP
1
& Ors. , MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Club
2
Anantara Suites and Retreat & Ors. , MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte.
3
Ltd and Anr. Vs. Evergreen Dealcom Pvt Ltd & Ors. , MHG IP Holding
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Motwani Constructions Pvt. Ltd &
4
Ors. , MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Anantara
5
Galleria and Anantara & Anr. , MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd
6
and Anr. Vs. Anantara Spa & Anr. and MHG IP Holding (Singapore)
7
Pte. Ltd and Anr. Vs. Anantara Spa and Massage .
9. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiffs and perused the record.
10. The defendants have neither contested the suit nor filed a written
statement despite servicce, therefore the averments made in the plaint stand
unrebutted. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the
claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be
disposed of before the recording of oral evidence. The facts are, therefore,
not required to be proved by the plaintiffs by way of further oral evidence.
The plaint and the documents placed on record, duly supported by an
affidavit, suffice for the purpose for which the suit has been instituted.
1
CS(COMM) 919/2024; dated 24.05.2025
2
CS(COMM) 1229/2025; dated 14.11.2025
3
CS(COMM) 267/2026; dated 18.03.2026
4
Ex.P. 05/2026; dated 27.07.2026
5
CS(COMM) 834/2026; dated 03.08.2026
6
CS(COMM) 876/2026; dated 13.08.2025
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
Reference in this regard may be made to Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v.
8
Kunwer Sachdev & Anr. .
11. This Court in the case of ANI MEDIA PVT LTD Vs. RSY NEWS
9
AND ANR. vide paragraph nos. 22 to 23 has held as under:-
“22. The absence of a defence, however, does not relieve this Court of
the obligation to satisfy itself that the plaint, read with the documents on
record, establishes the plaintiff's entitlement to the reliefs claimed. The
claim is, therefore, examined on its merits.
23. Equally, the power under Rule 27 of the IPD Rules enables this
Court to pass a summary judgment in a suit before the Intellectual
Property Division even without a specific application. Here, a specific
application has in fact been filed and has been pressed. The procedural
requirements are, therefore, satisfied.”
12. On an examination of the merits, it is seen that the plaintiffs are the
registered proprietors of the mark “ANANTARA”, including in Class 36,
which covers rental of apartments, real estate agency and real estate
management services. Each impugned mark takes the plaintiffs’ mark
“ANANTARA” in its entirety as its leading and essential feature. The
suffixes “RESIDENTIAL RESORT”, “DOWNTOWN”, “RESIDENCE”,
“BLOCK BUILDING” and “-II” are merely descriptive, and do not dispel
the likelihood of confusion. The impugned marks are used for real estate
development, residential and allied services, which are identical with or
allied to the services for which the plaintiffs’ mark is registered.
13. The case is, therefore, squarely covered by Section 29(2)(c) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Court must presume a likelihood of
confusion in terms of Section 29(3) thereof. The adoption of “ANANTARA
DOWNTOWN”, which is identical to the name of the plaintiffs’ property at
7
CS(COMM) 914/2026; dated 21.08.2026
8
2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764
9
CS(COMM) 1018/2024; dated 29.09.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
Dubai, also cannot be regarded as bona fide. The same set of unrebutted
facts establishes misrepresentation and the likelihood of damage to the
plaintiffs’ goodwill, and the plaintiffs have thus made out a case of passing
off as well.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the suit is decreed in the following manner:-
i. The defendants, their directors, promoters, franchisees, associates,
licensees, agents, successors, assigns, members, employees and all
others acting on their behalf are permanently restrained from using the
plaintiffs’ registered trademark “ANANTARA”, or any mark identical
with or deceptively similar thereto. This includes ANANTARA
DOWNTOWN, ANANTARA RESIDENCE(S), ANANTARA
RESIDENTIAL RESORT, ANANTARA-II and ANANTARA
BLOCK BUILDING, whether used as a trademark, trading style,
project name or corporate name, in relation to real estate, hospitality,
residential or allied services.
ii. The defendants and all others acting on their behalf are further
restrained from using the said mark, or any variant thereof, in any
domain name, website, email address, social media handle or other
online identifier. They are also restrained from advertising or
promoting their projects or services in any manner that represents
them as associated, licensed or affiliated with the plaintiffs.
15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, on instructions,
submits that the plaintiffs give up the prayers for damages and costs.
16. The Registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet accordingly.
17. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02
CS(COMM) 267/2026
18. In view of the order passed in I.A. 28779/2026, the suit, along with
the pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
19. The date earlier fixed, i.e., 21.01.2027, stands cancelled.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026
Nc
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:23:02