Use of ANANTARA for allied real-estate services constitutes infringement with a presumed likelihood of confusion.

The plaintiffs, entities associated with Minor Hotel Group, claimed registered rights and goodwill in the “ANANTARA” mark for hotel, resort, real-estate and related services.

They alleged that the defendants used “ANANTARA” in the names and promotion of real-estate projects in Jabalpur, including “ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT”, “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN” and “ANANTARA-II”, without authorisation.

After cease-and-desist notices and unsuccessful pre-institution mediation, the plaintiffs filed suit and obtained an ex parte interim injunction.

The defendants were served but did not appear or file written statements; their right to do so was closed, and they were proceeded against ex parte.

The plaintiffs then sought summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3 CPC.

1. Whether the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, such that the suit could be decided by summary judgment without oral evidence.

2. Whether the defendants’ use of marks incorporating “ANANTARA” amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

Order XIII-A Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, permits summary judgment where a party has no real prospect of succeeding or defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason for trial.

The court relied on Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev (2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764) in considering that procedure.

The court cited ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. RSY News for the principle that an unopposed claim must still be examined on its merits; the court also referred to Rule 27 of the IPD Rules as permitting summary judgment in an IP suit.

Under Sections 29(2)(c) and 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, use of an identical or similar mark for identical or similar services may constitute infringement, with likelihood of confusion presumed in the circumstances specified by Section 29(3).

Passing off requires misrepresentation and likely damage to the plaintiff’s goodwill.

The defendants’ failure to appear or file written statements left the plaintiffs’ factual allegations unrebutted.

The court nevertheless examined the plaint and supporting documents and found that the plaintiffs held registrations for “ANANTARA”, including in Class 36.

Each impugned mark reproduced “ANANTARA” as its leading and essential feature; the accompanying terms were descriptive and did not dispel the likelihood of confusion.

Because the defendants used the marks for real-estate and allied services, the court found the use fell within Section 29(2)(c), attracting the presumption under Section 29(3).

The use of “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN”, also the name of a plaintiffs’ property in Dubai, was not bona fide.

The unrebutted facts further established misrepresentation and likely damage for passing off.

It permanently restrained them and persons acting on their behalf from using “ANANTARA” or any identical or deceptively similar mark, including the identified project names, for real-estate, hospitality, residential or allied services.

It also restrained use of such marks in online identifiers and promotion that could suggest association or affiliation with the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs gave up their claims for damages and costs; the Registry was directed to draw up the decree, and the suit and pending applications were disposed of.