‘Pay ₹5 Lakh Or Face Civil Prison For Repeatedly Breaching Injunction Order’: Delhi High Court To Hotel In Ramada's Trademark Infringement Suit
The Delhi High Court has directed a hotel to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with its Registry for repeated breach and “contumacious disobedience” of an injunction order passed against it in a trademark infringement suit filed by international hospitality company Ramada. Justice C Hari Shankar said that in case the sum is not deposited, Kumar Sambhav, the Director of La Ramada World Resort and Spa,...
The Delhi High Court has directed a hotel to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with its Registry for repeated breach and “contumacious disobedience” of an injunction order passed against it in a trademark infringement suit filed by international hospitality company Ramada.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that in case the sum is not deposited, Kumar Sambhav, the Director of La Ramada World Resort and Spa, would be taken into custody to suffer incarceration in civil prison for a period of week.
“Injunction orders passed by Courts cannot be treated as waste paper. The defendants (hotel and the director) were, apparently, cocking a snook at the Court, by following up the compliance of each injunction, granted by this Court, with a further act of disobedience the very next day or the day after," the bench observed.
The suit was filed by Ramada International against the defendant hotel and its director alleging that they infringed the “Ramada” trademark registered in favour of the former since 1991.
Ramada was also aggrieved by various websites operated by the defendants using the mark “Ramada”. Finding a prima facie case, the court on September 24, 2021, had restrained the defendants from using the mark in question. They were also directed to take steps to change the company’s name i.e. La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd. forthwith.
In September last year, the court dismissed an application moved by defendant-hotel’s Director seeking stay of direction for him to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs with the Registry as non-bailable warrant against him was suspended.
Observing that the defendants flouted the injunction order with impunity, Justice Shankar said,
“The plaintiff (Ramada International) was, thus, driven to file application after application before this Court, and the Court had to injunct again and again, as though its orders were worth tinsel.”
The court observed that incarceration or attachment of properties of the delinquent individual who breached the injunction order are the two corrective actions. However, it said that incarceration, which compromises the life and liberty of a person, is to be resorted to as a last resort option and that the same can be substituted with directions for monetary deposit.
“the Court directs the defendant, by way of sentence for having committed wilful and contumacious disobedience of the order passed by this Court, to deposit with the Registry of this Court, a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today. In the event of failure to deposit the said amount, Defendant 2 would be taken into custody to suffer incarceration in civil prison for a period of one week,” Justice Shankar ordered.
Case Title: RAMADA INTERNATIONAL,INC v. LA-RAMADA WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 764