Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Cordelia Cruises In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Rishikesh-Based Hotel

Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained 'Cordelia Inn' from using the said mark, stating that merely adding a prefix/ suffix (Inn in this case) to an existing mark does not make the offending mark any different/ distinct.

The bench observed,

“a comparison of the rival marks in issue reflects that the defendants have wholly incorporated the word “Cordelia”, and merely replaced the word “cruises” with descriptive prefix/ suffix “Inn” or “Hotel”...the defendants by just appending “Inn” or “Hotel” to the plaintiff's mark, cannot claim immunity from infringement, as the resulting marks still remains highly deceptive and consumers of average intelligence are likely to associate the origin of defendants' services with that of plaintiff.”

Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited which owns and operates Cordelia Cruises since November 2020 claimed that since both parties are engaged in similar nature of business i.e., hospitality industry which is relating to both 'cruise services' and 'hotel services', an average customer of imperfect recollection is likely to recollect only the term “Cordelia” and not other ancillary features in the mark.

Moreover, since both of them advertise their services on the same websites such as Goibibo, TripAdvisor, EaseMyTrip and MakeMyTrip, there exists an actual likelihood of confusion that there is some sort of association between the plaintiff and defendants.

The hotel owner on the other hand claimed that plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over the word “Cordelia” and any right of plaintiff, if at all, lie in the composite mark “Cordelia Cruises”. Further, their services relate only to hotel and lodging services on land and do not include cruise services.

Moreover, plaintiff operates luxury sea cruises, while the defendants operate a small, land-based hotel in Rishikesh and therefore, trade channels, customer base, and prices of their respective services are distinct and non-overlapping and thus there can be no reason for confusion amongst the customer.

The High Court disagreed on the point that the defendant is operating in a different field, having no connection with the plaintiff. It observed,

“It cannot be disputed that both plaintiff and defendants are catering to the hospitality industry, and that they are offering services to the same class of customers and are operating through the same trade channels, and that they are offering their services from the very same mediums…As such, the reasoning for adoption of the impugned marks by the defendants do not sound plausible, more so, since the defendants were well aware of the registered trademark of the plaintiff.”

The Court further noted that the rival marks are device marks with the prominent word “Cordelia” in both of them and thus, word/s like “hotel”, “inn” or visual elements such as a building, or a tagline by the defendants cannot cut any ice.

It said, “An average person with imperfect recollection is likely to identify it with the word “Cordelia” and not any other ancillary elements and therefore, the adoption of the name “Cordelia” by defendants, amounts to infringement.”

The Court added, “More so, whence one of the impugned marks of the defendants being is having the reference of palm trees, which in reality is nowhere related/ connected with them and/ or their services. This is with a view to give an impression to a common man that the defendants are connected with the plaintiff.”

As such, the Court granted interim relief to Cordelia Cruises and listed the main suit on September 23.

Appearance: Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Prabhu Tandon, Mr. Christopher Thomas, Mr. Yash A. Arora, Advs. for Plaitniff; Ms. Kangana Roda, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Mr. Suneet Kumar Tyagi and Ms. Amulya Kaushik, Advs. for Defendant

Case title: Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v. Mr. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 920

Case no.: CS(COMM) 42/2025

Click here to read order