'Completely Identical': Delhi High Court Temporarily Injuncts Firm From Using Mark Identical To Marriott's THE EDITION

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Savya Realty LLP and its partners from using the mark "EDITION" for realty projects, holding it to be “completely identical” to Marriott International Inc.'s registered trademark 'THE EDITION' and likely to mislead consumers.

On March 25, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that “the plaintiff has made out a prima facie strong case in its favour,” noting that “the overwhelming documents on record tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff” and that it is “likely to suffer great loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms if the defendants are not injuncted immediately.”

The court found that, except for the word “THE”, the defendants' mark is “completely identical” to Marriott's registered “EDITION” trademark. It noted that the font also appears to be identical, adding that “on the first glance, the mark of the defendants would clearly appear to be that of the plaintiff's.”

It further observed that the use of the impugned mark is likely to mislead consumers into believing that the defendants' project is associated with Marriott.

“An unwary consumer may be misled into believing any of the aforesaid three aspects. Plaintiff has asserted that it has no association with the defendants. In such case, the adoption and the use of the mark EDITION by the defendants seem to be unauthorized and the mark is deceptively similar visually, phonetically, structurally as also conceptually, having regard to the facts of the case,” the court said.

Marriott International Inc., which launched the EDITION brand in 2008 and holds registrations across multiple classes in India, approached the Court after discovering that the defendants were marketing a residential project under the name “THE EDITION” through their website and third-party platforms.

The company contended that the impugned mark incorporates its registered trademark in its entirety and that such use would mislead consumers into believing an association or authorisation.

The court restrained the realty company and all those acting on their behalf from using the impugned mark across all forms, including domain names, webpages, email addresses, social media accounts, and third-party platforms, as well as in metatags, metadata, and online advertising.

The court also directed the defendants to maintain accounts of all revenues, bookings, enquiries and commercial transactions generated through the use of the impugned mark until further proceedings in the suit.