Delhi High Court: “Initial Interest Confusion is Enough to Constitute Trademark Infringement” – Hotels.com Wins Against HOTELCOM

Delhi High Court: “Initial Interest Confusion is Enough to Constitute Trademark Infringement” – Hotels.com Wins Against HOTELCOM

Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hotels.com, restraining the defendants from using the marks HOTELCOM and its associated logo, which were found deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark HOTELS.COM. The Court held that the defendants had dishonestly adopted the infringing marks, thereby causing consumer confusion and taking undue advantage of the plaintiff’s goodwill.

The Court awarded a permanent injunction, damages of ₹5,00,000, and costs in favour of Hotels.com. Stressing that “even transient confusion at the initial stage of consumer engagement is sufficient to meet the requirement of deceptive similarity”, the Court found a clear case of infringement and passing off.


Facts

Hotels.com, part of Expedia Inc., operates one of the world’s leading hotel booking platforms. It owns the trademark HOTELS.COM, registered in India under Classes 9, 35, and 43, with extensive global recognition. Since its adoption in 2002, Hotels.com has operated in multiple jurisdictions, including India, with its domain name hotels.com registered since 1994.

In October 2023, during routine searches, the plaintiff discovered trademark applications by the defendants for HOTELCOM in Classes 9, 35, 38, and 42. The plaintiff opposed these applications and also issued cease-and-desist notices. Despite opposition proceedings and exchanges of notices, the defendants continued using HOTELCOM on their website hotelcom.live and mobile applications launched on the Google Play Store and Apple App Store.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ adoption of HOTELCOM was dishonest and intended to mislead consumers into associating their services with Hotels.com. They argued that both sets of services were allied and cognate—Hotels.com offered booking services, while the defendants offered digital room service communication software for hotels—making confusion inevitable.

Despite being served, the defendants failed to appear or file written submissions. Consequently, they were proceeded ex parte.


Issues

  1. Whether HOTELCOM was deceptively similar to HOTELS.COM and likely to cause consumer confusion.
  2. Whether the defendants’ use of a deceptively similar domain name and app constituted infringement and passing off.
  3. Whether ex parte proceedings justified granting summary judgment without trial.
  4. Whether damages and costs could be awarded when defendants deliberately evaded proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Hotels.com argued that it had built significant goodwill and secondary meaning in its mark HOTELS.COM through decades of use and global recognition. The services offered under the plaintiff’s mark were well-known to consumers and associated exclusively with Hotels.com.

The plaintiff highlighted that the defendants’ HOTELCOM marks were phonetically, structurally, and visually identical to its own, with only minor differences. They further argued that the defendants’ use of a deceptively similar domain (hotelcom.live) and mobile app constituted a classic case of initial interest confusion—where consumers, lured by the similarity, are drawn to the defendants’ platform under the mistaken belief that it is connected to Hotels.com.

Hotels.com further contended that the defendants’ conduct was mala fide, given their implausible explanation that HOTELCOM meant “hotel communication.” They relied on precedents such as Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed (2016), Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Harish Chaudhary (2020), and Cartier International A.G. v. Gaurav Bhatia (2016) to argue that ex parte injunctions and damages are warranted when defendants evade proceedings.


Respondent’s Arguments

The defendants did not appear despite being served with summons and notices. Their right to file written statements was closed, and they were proceeded against ex parte. In such circumstances, the Court deemed the plaintiff’s averments admitted.


Analysis of the Law

The Court held that under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, deceptive similarity is sufficient to establish infringement. Comparing the marks, it found HOTELCOM nearly identical to HOTELS.COM, both phonetically and visually. Since both parties targeted the hospitality industry, consumer confusion was inevitable.

On initial interest confusion, the Court cited Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal (2025), which clarified that even momentary confusion—where consumers are initially misled before realizing the true source—is actionable under trademark law. Such confusion diverts consumer attention and unfairly capitalizes on the plaintiff’s goodwill.

The Court further emphasized that ex parte decrees are justified when defendants deliberately avoid proceedings, relying on Cartier International A.G. v. Gaurav Bhatia (2016) and Inter Ikea cases. Awarding damages ensures infringers do not profit from evading litigation.


Precedent Analysis

  • Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal (2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784) – clarified that initial interest confusion suffices to establish infringement; applied directly here.
  • Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed (2016) & Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Harish Chaudhary (2020) – held that defendants avoiding proceedings cannot escape liability for infringement and damages.
  • Cartier International A.G. v. Gaurav Bhatia (2016) – held that damages can be awarded even when defendants do not appear, as evasion cannot shield them from accountability.

These precedents reinforced the Court’s decision to decree the suit ex parte with damages.


Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the plaintiff’s mark enjoyed global goodwill and strong reputation in India. The defendants’ adoption of HOTELCOM was dishonest, nearly identical to HOTELS.COM, and intended to ride on the plaintiff’s reputation.

The Court found that consumer confusion was inevitable—particularly in the form of initial interest confusion—causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Since the defendants had not contested the case, there was no real prospect of them succeeding at trial.

Accordingly, the Court decreed the suit under Order XIII-A CPC, granting permanent injunction, damages, and costs to the plaintiff.


Conclusion

The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Hotels.com, restraining the defendants from using HOTELCOM or any deceptively similar mark, domain, or app. The Court awarded ₹5,00,000 in damages and costs, reinforcing that deliberate evasion cannot protect infringers.

The ruling underscores that even brief consumer confusion is actionable and that ex parte proceedings can still yield damages to protect established trademarks.


Implications

This judgment highlights that Indian courts will strictly protect globally recognized marks against dishonest adoption. It reaffirms that “initial interest confusion”—even if temporary—is enough to establish infringement. The ruling also sends a clear signal that deliberate evasion of court proceedings will not absolve infringers of liability. For international brands operating in India, the case demonstrates strong judicial support in combating trademark dilution and cybersquatting.


FAQs

Q1: What is “initial interest confusion” in trademark law?
It refers to consumer confusion at the preliminary stage, where a deceptively similar mark diverts attention, even if the consumer later realizes the true source.

Q2: Can damages be awarded when defendants do not appear in court?
Yes. Courts have held that infringers cannot escape liability by evading proceedings, and damages ensure accountability.

Q3: Why was HOTELCOM found deceptively similar to HOTELS.COM?
Because both marks were nearly identical phonetically and visually, operated in the same industry, and targeted the same consumer base, creating a likelihood of confusion.

Also Read: Bombay High Court on Civic Planning in Badlapur: “A town with lakhs of citizens cannot survive without sewer lines” – Court directs strict scrutiny of Occupation Certificate, environmental clearances, and remedial action

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *