Introduction
Trademark protection plays a crucial role in preserving brand identity, commercial goodwill, and consumer trust. When a business uses a mark identical or deceptively similar to an established brand, particularly in related commercial sectors, it may create confusion regarding the origin of goods or services and their commercial association.
In an important trademark infringement decision dated 15 October 2026, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte. Ltd. and its co-plaintiffs, protecting the trademark “ANANTARA” against its unauthorised use by Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and the other defendants. The case concerned the use of marks incorporating “ANANTARA” for real estate and residential projects in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.
The judgment highlights the significance of registered trademark rights, the protection of brand goodwill, and the consequences of failing to contest infringement proceedings before a court.
Background of the ANANTARA Trademark Dispute
The plaintiffs in MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte. Ltd. & Ors. v. Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 267/2026, were associated with the Minor Hotel Group. According to their case, the “ANANTARA” trademark was adopted in 2000 for hotels, resorts, and spas, with the first property opening in Hua Hin, Thailand, in 2001.
The plaintiffs stated that the brand had expanded internationally, with more than 60 hotels, resorts, and serviced apartments operating under the mark across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. Their portfolio included Anantara Jewel Bagh in Jaipur and Anantara Downtown Dubai.
In India, the plaintiffs held registrations for the word mark “ANANTARA” and its label formatives across several trademark classes, including Classes 3, 35, 36, 43, and 44. Class 36 was particularly relevant because it covered services such as rental of apartments, real estate agency, and real estate management.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using several marks incorporating “ANANTARA” to market real estate and residential projects in Tilhari, Jabalpur. These included:
- ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT
- ANANTARA-II
- ANANTARA DOWNTOWN
- ANANTARA RESIDENCE
- ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING A, B, C
According to the plaintiffs, these projects were promoted through online property portals and digital platforms, including 99acres, Magicbricks, Housing.com, Justdial, Facebook, and Instagram.
The plaintiffs further contended that the use of “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN” was particularly problematic because it was identical to the name of their property in Dubai. They argued that the defendants’ conduct constituted trademark infringement and passing off.
Legal Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court
Before filing the suit, the plaintiffs issued cease-and-desist notices dated 5 September 2024, 12 June 2025, and 8 August 2025. These notices allegedly 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 proceedings ended in non-starter reports.
On 18 March 2026, the Delhi High Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using “ANANTARA” or deceptively similar marks in connection with their projects, business names, and online identifiers. The order also restricted advertising and promotional activities that could suggest an association with the plaintiffs.
Despite being served on 21 May 2026, the defendants did not enter an appearance or file written statements. On 18 September 2026, their right to file written statements was closed, and on 21 September 2026, they were proceeded against ex parte.
The plaintiffs subsequently sought summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Key Legal Issues Considered by the Court
1. Whether the use of “ANANTARA” constituted trademark infringement
The principal issue was whether the defendants’ use of marks incorporating “ANANTARA” infringed the plaintiffs’ registered trademark rights.
The Court observed that the plaintiffs were registered proprietors of “ANANTARA,” including in Class 36, which covered relevant real estate-related services.
The Court found that each disputed mark reproduced “ANANTARA” in its entirety as its leading and essential feature. Additional expressions such as “RESIDENTIAL RESORT,” “DOWNTOWN,” “RESIDENCE,” “BLOCK BUILDING,” and “-II” were considered descriptive and insufficient to eliminate the likelihood of confusion.
The Court also noted that the defendants’ activities concerned real estate development, residential services, and allied activities, which were identical or allied to services covered by the plaintiffs’ registrations.
2. Application of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
The Court held that the case was covered by Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that a likelihood of confusion was to be presumed under Section 29(3).
These provisions address trademark infringement in circumstances involving identical marks and relevant goods or services, subject to the statutory requirements.
The decision demonstrates the importance of examining the essential features of competing marks, the nature of the services involved, and the likelihood of consumer confusion.
For businesses, the practical lesson is that adding descriptive words to an existing registered trademark may not sufficiently distinguish a new brand where the protected mark remains its dominant feature.
3. Whether the defendants’ conduct amounted to passing off
The plaintiffs also alleged passing off, a legal remedy protecting goodwill against misrepresentation that causes or is likely to cause damage.
The Court considered the plaintiffs’ established goodwill, the defendants’ use of the mark, and the likelihood of damage arising from the alleged misrepresentation.
It specifically observed that adopting “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN,” identical to the name of the plaintiffs’ Dubai property, could not be regarded as bona fide in the circumstances. The unrebutted facts established misrepresentation and the likelihood of damage to the plaintiffs’ goodwill.
The Court therefore found that the plaintiffs had established a case of passing off as well.
4. Effect of the defendants’ failure to contest the proceedings
The defendants’ absence was an important procedural factor. They did not file written statements or contest the plaintiffs’ claims despite service.
However, the Court clarified that the absence of a defence does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to judgment. The Court must still examine whether the plaint and supporting documents establish the claimed entitlement to relief.
After examining the pleadings and evidence on record, the Court concluded that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that there was no compelling reason to require oral evidence before disposing of the suit.
This approach reflects the purpose of summary judgment: resolving appropriate commercial disputes efficiently where a trial is unnecessary.
Final Decision: Permanent Injunction Granted
By its order dated 15 October 2026, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
The Court permanently restrained the defendants, including persons acting on their behalf, from using the registered “ANANTARA” trademark or identical or deceptively similar marks in relation to real estate, hospitality, residential, or allied services.
The injunction specifically covered the disputed marks, including “ANANTARA DOWNTOWN,” “ANANTARA RESIDENCE(S),” “ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT,” “ANANTARA-II,” and “ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING.”
The defendants were also restrained from using the mark or its variants in domain names, websites, email addresses, social media handles, and other online identifiers. Further, they could not advertise or promote their projects in a manner representing an association, licence, or affiliation with the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, through their counsel, gave up their prayers for damages and costs. The Court directed the Registry to prepare the decree sheet, disposed of the pending application, and closed the suit.
Importantly, the decision granted permanent injunctive relief without awarding damages or costs.
Key Takeaways for Businesses and Brand Owners
The judgment offers several practical lessons for businesses operating in hospitality, real estate, and other brand-sensitive sectors.
1. Conduct trademark clearance before launching a brand. Businesses should search existing trademark registrations and assess the risk of infringement before selecting a project or corporate name.
2. Descriptive additions may not prevent infringement. Adding words such as “residence,” “downtown,” or “resort” may not distinguish a mark if it reproduces another brand’s essential feature and creates a likelihood of confusion.
3. Online use also matters. Brand protection extends beyond physical signage and advertising to domain names, websites, email addresses, social media accounts, and online property listings.
4. Preserve evidence of goodwill and infringement. Trademark registrations, promotional materials, market presence, online listings, and records of unauthorised use may be important in establishing a claim.
5. Respond to legal notices and court proceedings. Ignoring cease-and-desist notices or failing to contest a suit can leave allegations unrebutted and expose a business to permanent injunctive relief.
6. Injunctions and monetary relief are distinct. A court may grant an injunction while damages and costs are not awarded, as occurred here after the plaintiffs gave up those claims.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte. Ltd. & Ors. v. Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reinforces the importance of protecting registered trademarks and commercial goodwill against unauthorised use.
By finding that “ANANTARA” remained the essential feature of the disputed marks and that the circumstances established both infringement and passing off, the Court granted a permanent injunction covering the defendants’ project branding and online identifiers.
For brand owners, the judgment underlines the importance of proactive trademark protection, continuous market monitoring, and timely legal action. For businesses selecting new names, it serves as a reminder that adopting an established mark with descriptive additions can create significant legal risks.