LI Network
Published on: 30 August 2023 at 09:45 IST
The Delhi High Court has directed a hotel to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with its Registry due to repeated breaches and “contumacious disobedience” of an injunction order issued against it in a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by international hospitality company Ramada.
Justice C Hari Shankar stated that if the sum is not deposited, Kumar Sambhav, the Director of La Ramada World Resort and Spa, could be taken into custody for a week of incarceration in a civil prison.
“Injunction orders issued by Courts cannot be treated as worthless documents. The defendants (hotel and director) were evidently showing disregard for the Court’s authority by consistently following the compliance of each injunction granted by this Court with further acts of disobedience the very next day or shortly after,” the bench remarked.
The lawsuit was initiated by Ramada International against the defendant hotel and its director, claiming that they infringed the “Ramada” trademark that had been registered in favor of the former since 1991.
Ramada was also troubled by various websites operated by the defendants using the “Ramada” mark. Upon finding a prima facie case, the court issued an order on September 24, 2021, restraining the defendants from using the mark in question. They were also directed to promptly change the company’s name, which was La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.
In September of the previous year, the court rejected an application submitted by the defendant-hotel’s Director, who sought a stay on the directive to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs with the Registry, as a non-bailable warrant had been suspended against him.
Observing that the defendants flouted the injunction order without any consequences, Justice Shankar noted,
“The plaintiff (Ramada International) was therefore compelled to submit application after application before this Court, and the Court had to repeatedly issue injunctions, as if its orders held no value.”
The court acknowledged that the corrective actions available are the incarceration or attachment of properties of the erring individual who violated the injunction order. Nevertheless, it stated that imprisonment, which affects a person’s life and liberty, should only be employed as a last-resort option, and that it could be replaced with directions for monetary deposit.
“Thus, the Court orders the defendant, as a penalty for willful and obstinate defiance of the order issued by this Court, to deposit a sum of ₹5 lakhs with this Court’s Registry within four weeks from today. In case of non-compliance with this deposit, Defendant 2 may be taken into custody for one week’s incarceration in a civil prison,” Justice Shankar ruled.