LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. v. Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2017 INSC 1228Decided 14 Dec 2017
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6131 of 2015
Justice Ranjan Gogoi · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. had registered the trademarks "Royal Orchid" and "Royal Orchid Hotels" in Class 16 in 2005, a registration that had already been upheld through earlier litigation. The present dispute concerned a separate application by Royal Orchid for registration of the same marks in Class 42 (hotel services), which Kamat Hotels, owner of the competing "Orchid" mark registered in Class 42 since 2007, opposed. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board had allowed Royal Orchid's Class 42 registration, but the Madras High Court reversed this, holding Kamat Hotels was the prior user of "Orchid" and that the two marks were deceptively similar. Royal Orchid filed this special leave petition challenging the High Court's ruling.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court had reached its conclusions after a detailed appreciation of the evidence on record, including that Royal Orchid's own 2004 trademark application had claimed user only since 1999, undermining its claim to be the first user, and that such a fact-based finding, being a "perfectly possible and justified view," was not a fit case for interference on special leave. The Court also rejected the argument that an earlier 2014 order dismissing a related SLP over the Class 16 dispute barred the High Court from deciding the Class 42 issue, noting that the earlier order had expressly kept that question open. The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court will generally not re-weigh evidence or disturb a High Court's factual findings on questions like "who used a trademark first," when the High Court's view is a reasonable one properly reached on the record: special leave appeals are not a routine second round of fact-finding.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. vs. The Central Warehouse & Anr.

The Court held that the petitioners had not established that they were the "first owner" of the original artistic work, which was a precondition for expunging the impugned registration. Because that point was not established, the Court considered the argument about alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to be academic and unpersuasive. It also held that the parties' authorities relied on were not relevant to this analysis. The petition was dismissed, with an express clarification that the observations about the earlier suit (CS(COMM) 644/2018) do not decide the merits of that suit.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

This is a referral order, not a final judgment. The Court found a conflict between two of its earlier decisions, Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation and Jaycee Housing v. Registrar, Orissa High Court, on this question. It referred the matter to a larger bench and stayed the underlying commercial suit until the reference is decided.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Division Bench held that publication of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act only happens after an application is formally "accepted," and this application had not yet reached that stage. It agreed with the Single Judge's approach of sending the matter back to the trademark authorities for fresh, correct examination rather than the High Court deciding registrability itself, especially since the Registry was already re-examining the application per the earlier order. Finding no legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

Decided 15 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ITC Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. and connected matters

The High Court held that although the Controller's order deciding the two interlocutory petitions was framed somewhat confusingly, there was no real violation of fair procedure: ITC had been given adequate opportunities to respond at every stage, and the Patentee's later written submissions did not introduce anything genuinely new or unfair. The writ petition was dismissed alongside the connected appeal, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in how the patent opposition process was conducted.

Decided 10 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

The Division Bench found that hoardings for the disputed advertising campaign had been put up in Delhi before the lawsuit was filed, and that Kwick Living itself had a GST-registered principal place of business in Delhi's Naraina Industrial Area and admitted selling its products there. On this basis, the Court held that Delhi's territorial jurisdiction was clearly established under Section 20(a) and 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It allowed HUL to formally amend its plaint to record these two facts and sent the case back to the Single Judge to decide the interim injunction application on its merits, directing an expedited hearing.

Decided 2 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once the plaintiff's own affidavit asserted trademark and trade-dress infringement and claimed prior use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test that claim by asking when the mark had actually been used - regardless of whether the defendant's written statement was formally on record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and directed that the trial proceed with the plaintiff recalled to answer the question, while clarifying it expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 7 Aug 2026Read case