Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.09.2025
+ CS(COMM) 1133/2024
HOTELS.COM, LP .....Plaintiff
versus
BARATH M L AND ANR .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Rohan Seth & Ms.
Vanshika Singh, Advs.
For the Defendants : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 & IA No. 18971/2025
1. IA No. 18971/2025 has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under
Order XIII-A, Rules 3 and 6(1)(a), read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”), seeking a Summary Judgment.
2. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for a decree of permanent
injunction restraining infringement of its Trade Mark, passing off, dilution,
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 1 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
3. The dispute between the Parties, essentially pertains to the
Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Marks, ‘HOTELCOM’ and the logo
‘
’ (“ Impugned Marks ”). The Plaintiff is the owner and
proprietor of the Trade Mark, ‘HOTELS.COM’ (“ Plaintiff’s Mark ”)
registered in India under Classes 9, 35 and 43 and other variants of the
Plaintiff’s Mark which are registered outside of India.
4. Vide order dated 07.05.2025, it was recorded that the Defendants,
despite being served, have neither entered appearance nor have they filed
their respective Written Submissions and accordingly, the Defendants’ right
to file Written Submissions was closed and the Defendants were directed to
be proceeded ex-parte .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLANTIFF:
5. Mr. Prithvi Singh, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the
Plaintiff is a leading provider of consumer-direct hotel accommodation
services under the Plaintiff’s Mark and is a one-stop destination for booking
accommodations which include hotels, apartments, bed-and-breakfasts,
guest houses, hostels, etc.
6. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the platform
‘Hotels.com’ (“ Plaintiff’s Website ”) was originally launched as Hotels
Reservation Network (“ HRN ”) in the year 1991, by its 2 founders, David
Litman and Robett Diener. At the time, it provided hotel bookings through a
toll-free phone number to customers in the USA. Thereafter, in the year
2002, the Plaintiff adopted the Plaintiff’s Mark, when HRN changed its
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 2 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
name to ‘Hotels.com’, the name which it continues to use as of today.
Through the Plaintiff’s Website, the Plaintiff also commenced its services of
providing online bookings.
7. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is one
of the leading hotel booking service providers across the world and has a
presence in several countries including but not limited to Australia, Bolivia,
China, Canada, Germany, Ireland, India, Japan, Maldives, Mauritius,
Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, South Africa, United Kingdom, and the
United States of America.
8. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff runs
a world leading hotel accommodation booking platform under the Plaintiff’s
Mark, with over 85 localized websites worldwide in 34 local languages,
including an India-specific website, ‘https://in.hotels.com/’, featuring more
than 325,000 hotel listings. In 2019, the Plaintiff’s Website had over 17
million unique visitors from India-based IP addresses. The associated
Domain Name ‘hotels.com’ is owned and operated by the Plaintiff’s parent
company, Expedia Inc., and has been registered since 30.03.1994. Through
the Plaintiff’s Website, from the years 2010 to 2023, over 2 million room
nights have been booked from India-based IP addresses, which resulted in a
gross booking value of over USD 200 million.
9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that in connection
with its services, the Plaintiff has partnered with some of the world’s best
and most renowned chains of hotels and brands such as Taj Palace, Holiday
Inn, The Leela Palace, The Lalit, Shangri-La Eros, Radisson Blue, JW
Marriott, ITC Maurya, The Oberoi, Le Meridien, Four Points by Sheraton,
etc.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 3 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
10. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff also
operates its mobile application ‘Hotels.com’ on both the Google Play Store
and Apple App Store. The mobile application on Google Play Store has, as
on date, received more than 10 million downloads with a rating of 4.8 stars
out of 5. Though the Apple App Store does not disclose the number of
downloads, it does indicate that the mobile application has a rating of 4.8 out
of 5, with over 2 million ratings.
11. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that insofar as the
Indian jurisdiction is concerned, the Plaintiff has filed Trade Mark
Applications for registration of the Plaintiff’s Mark, and out of these
Applications, one has proceeded to registration. The current status of the
Trade Mark Applications, as given in the Plaint, are reproduced as under:
S. No. Application
Mark/
Date of
Classes Status
No.
Representation
application
1. 6408702 HOTELS.COM 29th April
9, 35,
Registered
2024
43
(User claim:
8th December
2008)
2. 2855826 HOTELS.COM 3rd December
9, 35,
Pending
2014
43
12. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that in view of the
Plaintiff’s prior adoption and extensive use, the members of the trade and
industry and the consumers at large are well-aware of the Plaintiff’s Mark
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 4 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
and the same have acquired secondary meaning which is exclusively
associated with the services offered by the Plaintiff.
13. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that during the month
of October 2023, the Plaintiff, while conducting its regular searches on the
online records of the Trade Marks Registry, came across the following Trade
Mark Applications filed by Defendant No. 1:
S. No. Trademark Application
Class Date of
Current
No.
Application
Status
1. HOTELCOM 5610255 9 15th
Objected
September
2022
2. HOTELCOM 5610252 35 15th
Objected
September
2022
3. HOTELCOM 5610256 38 15th
Objected
September
2022
4. HOTELCOM 5610253 42 15th
Opposed
September
by the
2022
Plaintiff
on 25th
July 2024
5.
5610251 42 15th
Opposed
September
by the
2022
Plaintiff
on 10th
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 5 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
November
2023
14. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff
initiated opposition proceedings against Defendant No. 1’s Trade Mark
Application No. 5610251 for the Mark
in November 2023.
After the Plaintiff filed its opposition, Defendant No. 1 filed its Counter
Statement stating that both the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Marks
were offering different services and would not cause any confusion. As the
next step, the Plaintiff filed its evidence in support of the opposition, to
which Defendant No. 1 did not file its evidence in support of the application
within the prescribed statutory time frame.
15. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff also
addressed a Cease and Desist Notice dated 22.11.2023 (“ Cease and Desist
Notice ”) to the Defendants, calling upon them to cease all use of the
Impugned Marks. The Plaintiff’s counsels received a Reply dated
22.12.2023 (“ Reply to the Cease and Desist Notice ”) from the Defendants’
counsel, refuting the claims made in the Cease and Desist Notice, and
calling upon the Plaintiff to withdraw its notice of opposition against the
Trade Mark Application No. 5610251. Additionally, the Reply to the Cease
and Desist Notice also offered an implausible and frivolous reason for
adopting the Impugned Marks reasoning that the Impugned Marks are a
combination of the words “hotel” and “com”, abbreviated from
“communication”. Further, in the Reply to the Cease and Desist Notice, the
Defendants had stated that their services are geared towards hotel owners
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 6 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
and hoteliers and, therefore, the customer sophistication i.e., the concept of
sophisticated buyers, such as those who have expertise in a specific area, are
less likely to be confused by similarities in the Marks.
16. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff sent a
Rejoinder dated 24.05.2025 to the Reply to the Cease and Notice, denying
the Defendants’ justification behind adoption of the Impugned Marks,
reiterating the contents of the notice, and again calling upon the Defendants
to cease all use of the Impugned Marks within 7 days. The Plaintiff hasn’t
received a reply to the Rejoinder dated 24.05.2025.
17. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff also
filed its opposition to Defendant No. 1’s Trade Mark Application No.
5610253 and Defendant No. 1 has failed to file its Counter Statement within
the statutorily prescribed time period and, therefore, the Trade Application
No. 5610253 is bound to be abandoned.
18. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants
are using the Impugned Marks, which are phonetically identical and
structurally similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark in connection with intercom /
room service receivers, which goods and services are allied and cognate to
the hotel accommodation services offered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s
consumers, upon booking and visiting their respective hotels may, upon
coming across the Defendants’ goods and services believe that the same
originate from or are an extension of the Plaintiff’s services. Such potential
association between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are likely to be
injurious to the hard-earned reputation of the Plaintiff.
19. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants
are operating the website, ‘www.hotelcom.live’ (“ Impugned Website ”). The
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 7 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
domain is also deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Website. Use of a
Domain Name that is deceptively similar to a reputed Trade Mark is
impermissible. The Defendants claim to be engaged in the services of
providing a digital room service communication and management platform /
software that can be utilized by hotels as a substitute to the traditional
intercom / extension. As per the Impugned Website, the Defendants operate
a mobile application under the name, ‘HOTELCOM’, that could have been
downloaded from the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store. As per the
Google Play Store listing, the Defendants’ mobile application was published
on 14.12.2022.
20. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants’
adoption and use of the Impugned Marks creates a strong likelihood of
consumer confusion and, prospective / future customers of the Plaintiff may
visit the Impugned Website believing it to be that of the Plaintiff. Even if
pursuant to visiting the Impugned Website they realise that the Defendants’
services are in fact not the services of the Plaintiff, the same still gives rise
to the category of confusion identified as ‘Initial Interest Confusion’. If a
web user uses a Trade Mark because they are looking for the site of the
company that owns the Mark, initial interest confusion caused by the
domain name of the Defendants may deceive and lure the web user to the
Impugned Website. Even though when the web users access the Impugned
Website they find that it is not the Plaintiff’s Website, the Defendants have
succeeded in luring users to their site thus, resulting in passing off.
21. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that while the Plaintiff
is in the business of booking hotels, the Defendants are in the allied and
cognate service of providing intercom to the hotels. The present case is a
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 8 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
classic case of ‘Initial Interest Confusion’, wherein any consumer would get
confused by the deceptively similar Mark being used by the Defendants, as
that of the Plaintiff.
22. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that this Court in Inter
Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6717 and Inter
Ikea Systems BV v. Harish Chaudhary CS(Comm) 106/2020, held that the
defendant who chooses to stay away from legal proceedings cannot be
allowed to take advantage of the evasion and damages can be awarded even
in cases which are decided ex-parte .
SUBMISSIONS BY THE DEFENDANTS:
23. The Defendants have not entered appearance despite being given
multiple opportunities to do so and are proceeded ex-parte .
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
24. Vide Order dated 17.12.2024, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was
granted in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants from use of the
Impugned Marks or any deceptively similar variant of the Plaintiff’s Mark
as a Trade Mark, Trade Name, Domain Name, on social media, as part of
their e-mail addresses or in any manner, which amounts to infringement of
the Plaintiff’s Mark. The Defendants were also directed to take down all
their social media pages / profiles including Facebook, Instagram and
LinkedIn, referring to the Impugned Marks. Further, the Defendants were
restrained from transferring the Impugned Website to any third party during
the pendency of the Suit proceedings. Vide Order dated 07.02.2025, it was
noted that the Defendants have been served via email, however, the
Defendants have failed to enter appearance in the Suit.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 9 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
25. Vide Order dated 07.05.2025, it was recorded that the Defendants
have neither entered appearance nor have they filed their Written
Submissions, accordingly, it was directed that the Defendants be proceeded
ex-parte . The Plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the
Affidavit of the Plaintiff. In view of the fact that no Written Statement has
been filed on behalf of the Defendants, all the averments made in the Plaint
have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since no Affidavit of Admission /
Denial has been filed on behalf of the Defendants in respect of the
documents filed with the Plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted.
26. Accordingly, no purpose shall be served in putting the matter for trial,
when no defense has been raised by the Defendants. Further, considering the
facts and circumstances of the present case, the Defendants do not appear to
have any real prospect of succeeding in the present case.
27. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to a Summary Judgment in its
favour under Order XIII-A of the CPC. The Plaintiff is also entitled to
recover the costs of this proceedings.
28. It is well settled that this Court is empowered to grant a Summary
Judgment where the Defendants have no real prospect of successfully
defending the claim, and if the Court can make the necessary finding of fact
on the basis of the facts and documents on record, there is no requirement to
hold trial.
29. A comparison of the Plaintiff’s Mark, ‘HOTELS.COM’, and the
Defendants’ Mark, ‘HOTELCOM’, would show that the Defendants have
adopted the Impugned Marks, which are almost identical to the Plaintiff's
Mark. The Impugned Marks are also sought to be registered in the same
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 10 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
Class as that of the Plaintiff’s Mark. The associated Domain Name of the
Plaintiff, i.e. ‘hotels.com’, is owned and operated by the Plaintiff’s parent
company, Expedia Inc., since 30.03.1994. The Plaintiff is the prior user of
the Mark, ‘HOTEL.COM’ and have been using it since 2002.
30. Based on the documents on record, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has
built substantial goodwill and a strong reputation both globally and in India
over the years. In view of the overall similarity between the Plaintiff’s Mark
and the Impugned Marks, the Defendants’ infringing activities are bound to
cause confusion in the minds of the consumers, who will assume the
Defendants’ products and services to have originated from the business or
house of the Plaintiff.
31. This Court in Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 3784, held that the initial interest confusion Test proceeds on
the principle that confusion in the minds of consumers may arise at the
preliminary stage, prior to the actual purchase being completed. At the point
of finalising the transaction, the consumer may no longer be in doubt as to
the true origin of the goods or services. Nonetheless, even such transient
confusion at the initial stage is sufficient to meet the requirement of
deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The
infringer’s objective may be served merely by diverting the consumer’s
initial attention. The consumer may, thereafter, consciously opt for the
infringer’s product on account of its own characteristics, with complete
knowledge that it is unconnected with the registered Trade Mark. The
Defendants’ use of the Impugned Marks is with the purpose of causing
confusion in the mind of the customers to generate traffic to the Impugned
Marks riding upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff’s Mark. The Defendant
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 11 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
cannot be allowed to take advantage of the Plaintiff’s goodwill and use a
Mark that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark in order to generate
traffic to the Impugned Website.
32. A clear case of infringement of the Plaintiff’s Mark is made out. The
Impugned Marks are nearly identical, the class of consumers targeted by
both parties directly overlaps, and the channels of trade are identical.
Consequently, there exists a likelihood that consumers may mistakenly
associate the Defendants’ services with those of the Plaintiff’s or perceive
them as a variant of the Plaintiff’s services, causing irreparable harm to the
Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
33. The Defendants have taken unfair advantage of the reputation and
goodwill of the Plaintiff’s Mark and have also deceived the unwary
consumers of their association with the Plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the
Impugned Marks nearly identical to the Plaintiff’s Mark without any
plausible explanation. Therefore, the Plaintiff has established a case of
passing off as well.
34. Besides a decree of permanent injunction, learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff has also pressed for reliefs of compensatory damages, exemplary
damages and costs.
35. In Cartier International A.G. v. Gaurav Bhatia 2016 SCC OnLine
Del 8, while granting the damages in case where the defendants did not
appear to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff, this Court has observed that
the defendant who deliberately avoids court proceedings should not be
allowed to benefit from such evasion as that would be unfair to a defendant
who submits account records and is held liable for damages, while one who
evades proceedings escapes liability due to the absence of financial records.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 12 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35
36. The decision in Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed ( supra ) and
Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Harish Chaudhary ( supra ) further supports the
Plaintiff’s right to seek damages and recover costs even when the
Defendants are proceeded ex-parte .
37. In view of the above, the present Application is allowed and it is
directed that:
i. The Suit is decreed against the Defendants in terms of Paragraph No.
45(a) to (e) of the Plaint.
ii. The Defendants shall pay an amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Only) as damages and costs.
38. Let the Decree Sheet be drawn up.
39. The present Suit and the pending Applications are disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025
‘AK’
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1133/2024 Page 13 of 13
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2025
16:57:35