By Vohra & Vohra

Introduction

In trademark law, the most consequential cases are often those where an infringer does not merely imitate a logo but appropriates the very identity by which consumers recognise a business.

The Delhi High Court’s recent order in Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Mr. Jerome Fernandes, concerning the use of “HOLIDAY INN” by a hotel operator in Goa, is a notable illustration. On 17 August 2026, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using “Hotel Jerome’s Holiday Inn”, “Holiday Inn” or any deceptively similar mark in connection with the hotel business. The Court also directed removal of the defendant’s advertisements and listings from third-party travel platforms, including Goibibo, MakeMyTrip, TripAdvisor and Trivago.

The order is significant not merely because the defendant used the entirety of the plaintiff’s trademark. It demonstrates how Indian courts approach the protection of well-known marks, particularly where the impugned use concerns identical services and is capable of creating an immediate impression of affiliation, endorsement or commercial association.

It also highlights an increasingly important dimension of trademark enforcement: digital visibility. In the hospitality sector, an infringing hotel name does not remain confined to a physical signboard. It travels instantly across hotel-booking websites, search results, review platforms and digital advertisements.

The Dispute: “Holiday Inn” in a Hotel Name

The plaintiff, Six Continents Hotels, Inc., is associated with the Holiday Inn hotel chain and is a subsidiary of InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG). It approached the Delhi High Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Jerome Fernandes, who was operating a hotel in Goa under the name “Hotel Jerome’s Holiday Inn.”

Six Continents asserted long-standing rights in the HOLIDAY INN word mark, including a registration dating back to 1964. It further relied upon registrations for HOLIDAY INN RESORT and formative marks incorporating the expression.

Importantly, the plaintiff submitted that HOLIDAY INN had been designated as a well-known trademark in India and had previously received judicial protection from the Delhi High Court.

Against this background, the defendant’s adoption of the expression was not a case of remote similarity between two unrelated brands. The defendant had incorporated the plaintiff’s complete trademark into the very name under which it offered hotel and hospitality services.

That fact substantially strengthened the plaintiff’s claim for immediate protection.

Complete Incorporation of a Well-Known Mark

One of the clearest features of the dispute is that the defendant did not merely adopt a mark that happened to resemble HOLIDAY INN.

The expression “Holiday Inn” appeared in its entirety in the name “Hotel Jerome’s Holiday Inn”.

From a consumer’s perspective, the addition of “Hotel Jerome’s” does not necessarily neutralise the significance of the words “Holiday Inn”. On the contrary, the structure of the expression may reinforce an inference that the establishment is a Holiday Inn property operated, managed, affiliated with or otherwise connected to the established hotel chain.

This is particularly important in the hospitality industry, where consumers routinely understand hotel names to indicate ownership, affiliation, management or brand association.

The issue, therefore, is not simply whether the defendant’s complete name is visually identical to the plaintiff’s trademark. The more fundamental question is whether the use of the plaintiff’s distinctive mark in the defendant’s trade name is capable of generating a false commercial association.

At the interim stage, the Delhi High Court answered that question in favour of the plaintiff.

The Significance of Well-Known Trademark Status

The case also demonstrates the practical value of obtaining and maintaining protection for a well-known trademark.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 recognises that certain marks possess a reputation extending beyond their immediate goods or services. The statutory framework therefore provides enhanced protection to well-known marks against uses that may take unfair advantage of, or cause detriment to, their distinctive character or reputation.

For a brand such as HOLIDAY INN, which operates as an established identifier of hospitality services, unauthorised adoption can have consequences beyond conventional consumer confusion.

A consumer encountering “Holiday Inn” in the name of a hotel may reasonably assume that the property forms part of the established chain or has some commercial relationship with it.

The resulting harm can affect not only the plaintiff’s revenue but also its brand control, reputation and consumer trust.

Identical Services Intensify the Risk of Confusion

The present dispute is particularly straightforward from the standpoint of the nature of services.

Both the plaintiff and defendant operate in the hospitality sector.

There is therefore no need to construct an elaborate chain of reasoning to establish proximity between the competing commercial activities. The plaintiff’s trademark is associated with hotels and hospitality services, while the defendant used the same expression as part of the name of a hotel.

This identity of commercial field substantially strengthens the likelihood of confusion and association.

The legal concern is also practical. Hotel consumers frequently make bookings without visiting the premises beforehand. They may encounter a hotel name through a Google search, travel website, social media advertisement or booking platform.

Consequently, even a momentary mistaken belief that a hotel is associated with a recognised international chain can influence the consumer’s purchasing decision.

The Digital Dimension: From Physical Signboards to Booking Platforms

Perhaps the most contemporary aspect of the order is the Court’s direction concerning online listings.

The defendant was directed to take down advertisements and listings of the hotel from third-party platforms, including Goibibo, MakeMyTrip, TripAdvisor and Trivago, and to disclose other online listings.

This is significant because modern trademark infringement increasingly operates through digital ecosystems.

A hotel may use an infringing name on:

• online travel agencies;
• search-engine listings;
• booking portals;
• social-media accounts;
• digital advertisements;
• review platforms; and
• domain names.

Merely directing the defendant to remove a physical signboard would therefore not necessarily eliminate the infringement or consumer confusion.

The Court’s direction reflects a more realistic understanding of how hospitality brands are discovered and consumed in the digital marketplace.

Trademark enforcement must correspondingly extend beyond physical premises to the online points at which consumers encounter the brand.

Ex-Parte Relief and the Threefold Interim Test

The Court granted the injunction on an ex-parte ad-interim basis, meaning that immediate protection was granted before the defendant had an opportunity to fully contest the application.

Such relief is exceptional and requires careful judicial consideration.

The Court recorded that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and that failure to grant interim protection would result in irreparable loss and injury.

The reasoning reflects the conventional threefold test for interlocutory injunctions.

First, the plaintiff must establish a serious prima facie case.

Second, the Court must consider which party would suffer greater prejudice depending upon whether relief is granted.

Third, the Court must determine whether monetary compensation would adequately remedy the injury likely to be caused in the absence of immediate protection.

In cases involving established brands, the continued use of a confusingly similar mark can progressively erode distinctiveness and create an association that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.

This makes interim protection particularly important.

Passing Off: Protecting Commercial Goodwill

The plaintiff’s action was founded not merely upon statutory trademark infringement but also upon passing off.

The passing-off jurisdiction protects goodwill and prevents one trader from misrepresenting its business as being connected with another.

The essential concern is therefore broader than ownership of a registered mark. It is the protection of the commercial reputation attached to a particular identity.

In the hospitality industry, this principle assumes particular importance because brand identity communicates expectations regarding service standards, quality, facilities and customer experience.

If an unauthorised hotel trades under a famous hotel chain’s name, consumers may attribute the experience at that hotel—whether positive or negative—to the genuine brand.

The potential reputational consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate transaction.

A Message to the Hospitality Industry

The order carries a broader commercial message.

Independent hotels cannot assume that adding a proprietor’s name or a geographical identifier to a famous trademark will make the resulting name sufficiently distinctive.

Equally, hotel operators must conduct trademark clearance before investing in signage, websites, booking-platform listings, advertising and other brand assets.

For established hospitality brands, the decision reinforces the importance of active brand surveillance. Monitoring must extend beyond physical establishments to online travel platforms and digital advertising ecosystems.

Once an unauthorised listing is identified, prompt documentation and enforcement may prevent the infringing identity from acquiring further goodwill.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s order in Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Mr. Jerome Fernandes reinforces the robust protection available to established and well-known trademarks in India.

The case is particularly instructive because the impugned use involved the complete incorporation of “HOLIDAY INN” into the name of a hotel offering identical services, coupled with online promotion through prominent travel platforms.

The Court’s response was correspondingly comprehensive: it restrained use of the impugned name and directed the removal of the defendant’s digital presence from third-party booking and travel platforms.

The broader lesson is that trademark protection today cannot be confined to physical premises. In a digital hospitality marketplace, a brand is encountered wherever consumers search, compare, review and book.

For brand owners, the decision demonstrates the importance of registration, well-known mark protection, market surveillance and swift enforcement. For businesses selecting new names, it serves as an equally clear warning: incorporating a famous trademark into a trade name is not cured merely by adding one’s own name or another distinguishing expression.

Ultimately, the case reinforces a fundamental principle of trademark law: commercial identity carries legal value, and the goodwill built around that identity cannot be appropriated by another trader merely by changing its surroundings.