- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Rules In Favor Of IHCL; Bans Taj Iconic From Using Brand 'Taj'
Delhi High Court Rules In Favor Of IHCL; Bans Taj Iconic From Using Brand 'Taj'
It was found guilty of Trademark infringement and defrauding a jeweler
In a trademark suit filed by the Tata Group of companies, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the managing director of Taj Iconic Membership has been permanently restrained from using the 'Taj' name, logo, and content.
The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the transfer of Taj Iconic's domain to The Indian Hotels Co Ltd (IHCL), a part of the Tata Group, as the former was found guilty of trademark infringement and defrauding a jeweler of Rs.51 lakh gold coins.
The bench held, “It is apparent that the use of the various contents and photographs available on the plaintiff's (IHCL) website, by the defendant (Taj Iconic) related to business activities, has the effect of inducing the consumers and members of the trade to falsely believe that the defendant has a direct nexus or affiliation with the plaintiff."
It added that the fraudulent and illegal trade activities of the defendant could cause incalculable harm and injury to the business, goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiff's mark.
The court further directed the managing director of Taj Iconic to pay damages of Rs.10 lakh and a cost of Rs.5 lakh to IHCL.
The judge held Taj Iconic guilty of infringement of the petitioner's marks and photographs and that it indulged in criminal activities by impersonating the petitioner and defrauding a jeweler.
He added that a party that chooses not to participate in the court proceedings should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of the proceedings and must suffer the consequences of damages.
In its order, the bench said that IHCL, a subsidiary of Tata, is India's oldest, largest, most trusted and best-known business conglomerate. It had been using the trademark ‘Taj’ since 1903 and was also the owner of the copyrights associated with the logo/device and the Epicure Card dealing with the Taj Hotel Rewards Program available on its website.
The court was hearing the IHCL's plea against Taj Iconic's unauthorized use of the registered trademark and its various content and photographs available on the website www.tajhotels.com and the photographs of the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Mumbai.