Delhi High Court Permanently Injuncts Jabalpur Real Estate Developers From Using 'ANANTARA' Trademark

The Delhi High Court on 15 October permanently restrained Evergreen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and other defendants from using the 'ANANTARA' trademark or any identical or deceptively similar mark for real estate, hospitality, residential and allied services.

A Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the summary judgment in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte. Ltd., M & H Management Limited, and MHG Management (India) Private Limited against Evergreen Dealcom and others.

The plaintiffs are part of the Minor Hotel Group. They submitted that they adopted the 'ANANTARA' trademark in 2000 for hotels, resorts and spas, and opened their first property under the mark in Hua Hin, Thailand, in 2001.

They stated that they now own, operate or manage more than 60 hotels, resorts and serviced apartments under the trademark across Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Their properties include Anantara Jewel Bagh in Jaipur and Anantara Downtown Dubai.

Moreover, they alleged that Evergreen Dealcom, acting through its directors, and the other defendants had developed and marketed real estate projects in Tilhari, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, under the marks 'ANANTARA RESIDENTIAL RESORT', 'ANANTARA-II', 'ANANTARA DOWNTOWN', 'ANANTARA RESIDENCE' and 'ANANTARA BLOCK BUILDING A, B, C'.

Allegedly, the defendants promoted these projects through online platforms, including 99acres.com, Magicbricks.com, Housing.com, Justdial.com, Facebook and Instagram.

On 18 March 2026, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks or any identical or deceptively similar marks.

It also barred them from using the mark in domain names, websites, email addresses, social media handles and other online identifiers, or promoting their projects in a manner suggesting an association with the plaintiffs.

The defendants were served on 21 May 2026 but did not enter appearance. On 18 September 2026, the Joint Registrar closed their right to file written statements after recording that none had been filed within the prescribed period. The Court proceeded against them ex parte on 21 September 2026.

The Court noted that the interim injunction remained in force and had not been challenged. Considering the plaintiffs' application under Order XIII-A Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it observed that the defendants had neither contested the suit nor filed written statements despite service. Their failure to respond left the plaintiffs' pleadings unrebutted.

It also found that all the disputed marks incorporated 'ANANTARA' in its entirety as their leading and essential feature. It held that additional expressions such as 'RESIDENTIAL RESORT', 'DOWNTOWN', 'RESIDENCE', 'BLOCK BUILDING' and '-II' were descriptive and did not dispel the likelihood of confusion.

Further, the Bench noted that the defendants used the marks for real estate development, residential and allied services that were identical or allied to the services covered by the plaintiffs' registered trademark. It held that the use fell within Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, attracting the presumption of confusion under Section 29(3).

It also found that adopting 'ANANTARA DOWNTOWN', the name of the plaintiffs' Dubai property, could not be considered bona fide. It noted that the unrebutted facts also established misrepresentation and a likelihood of damage to the plaintiffs' goodwill, making out a case of passing off.

Accordingly, the High Court permanently restrained the defendants from using the 'ANANTARA' trademark or deceptively similar marks and disposed of the suit.