Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against 'VARDHAMAN CITYWALK' for Trademark Infringement
Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd. secures ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect its 'CITYWALK' trademark from alleged unauthorized use by Vardhman Amrante Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited, restraining Vardhman Amrante Private Limited from using the trademark 'VARDHAMAN CITYWALK'. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark was likely to cause confusion in the market and infringe upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's registered trademarks, 'CITYWALK' and 'SELECT CITYWALK'.
The case, Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited & Anr. v. Vardhman Amrante Private Limited, was heard by Justice Tejas Karia. The plaintiffs, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Chander M. Lall, argued that they have been using the 'CITYWALK' mark since 2004 and have invested significant resources in building its reputation. They contended that the defendant's use of 'VARDHAMAN CITYWALK' was a deliberate attempt to ride on the coattails of their established brand.
The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' registered trademarks, which include various forms and variants of 'CITYWALK', and noted the extensive advertising and promotion undertaken by the plaintiffs over the years. The court observed that the plaintiffs' marks have gained substantial goodwill and consumer recognition, making them entitled to protection against identical or deceptively similar marks.
The judgment highlighted the application of the triple identity test, where the court found that the marks, product category, and consumer base were identical. The court concluded that the defendant's marks were prima facie dishonest and indistinguishable from the plaintiffs' marks, thereby causing potential market confusion.
In light of these findings, the court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, prohibiting Vardhman Amrante Private Limited and its associates from using, advertising, or promoting 'VARDHAMAN CITYWALK' or any other similar marks. The court emphasized the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs and the irreparable injury they might suffer without the injunction.
The court has scheduled the next hearing on January 21, 2026, and directed the defendants to file a reply within four weeks. The compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be completed within two weeks.
Bottom Line:
Trademark law - Prior adopter and user of a trademark is entitled to protection against identical or deceptively similar marks that may cause confusion in the market.
Statutory provision(s): Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151; Trademark law - Infringement and Passing Off; Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC
