In the case between Nandhini Deluxe and Hotel Nandini, the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge of Bengaluru delivered a judgment on September 2, 2024, dismissing both the plaintiff’s suit and the defendant’s counter-claim regarding trademark infringement and passing off.
Nandini Deluxe’s Submissions
The plaintiff, M/s. Nandhini Deluxe operates a chain of hotels under the trademark “NANDHINI DELUXE” in Bengaluru and claimed that the defendant, M/s. Hotel Nandini was infringing its trademark by using the name “Hotel Nandini” for their hotel business in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction and damages of Rs. 25,000 per day, alleging that the defendant’s use of the name “Nandini” was deceptive and likely to cause confusion among consumers. The plaintiff also sought the surrender of all materials related to the allegedly infringing trademark and a rendering of accounts.
Hotel Nandini’s Submissions
In response, the defendant argued that they had been operating their hotel under the name “Nandini” since 1970, and claimed prior use of the name. They asserted that “Nandini” was a generic name, commonly associated with a goddess and a cow, and that their use of the name did not infringe the plaintiff’s trademark. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff’s trademark “NANDHINI” was different due to its stylized font and added elements, such as dots in the word and a specific logo.
Court’s Decision
Upon review, the court concluded that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the defendant’s use of the name “Hotel Nandini” infringed their trademark. The court noted significant differences in the presentation and usage of the names. While the plaintiff’s mark included a distinctive lamp device and artistic elements, the defendant used only the word “Nandini” without these additional features. Furthermore, the court held that “Nandini” was a generic word, and the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights to it.
Similarly, the defendant’s counter-claim for infringement by the plaintiff was also dismissed, as they failed to provide evidence of their exclusive right to the word “Nandini.” The court found no substantial evidence to support either party’s claims and ruled that both the plaintiff and defendant could continue using their respective names without infringing on each other’s trademarks.
Citation: M/s. Nandhini Deluxe v. M/s. Hotel Nandini, O.S.No.9377/2014 (XVIII Add’l City Civil Judge Bengaluru, Sept. 2, 2024). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/104947987/, Visited on: 05/10/2024.
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
