ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. versus KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 14-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 217 
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. 
v. 
KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LTD. & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.6131 of 2015) 
DECEMBER 14, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Intellectual property: Trademark - Registration of trade mark 
A 
B 
of petitioner refused by Deputy Registrar on the ground that the 
petitioner was not the first user of the logo/mark 'Royal Orchid' as 
C 
claimed and in fact, the mark/logo 'Orchid' was being used by 
respondents no.I from an anterior date and also the two logos/ 
marks were similar - IPAB set aside the order of Deputy Registrar 
and allowed the registration of petitioner's trademark in class 42 
holding that use of mark by petitioner was prior in point of time 
and considering the class of customers serviced by the parties, no 
D 
confusion was likely to be caused by use of two logos/marks - High 
Court set aside the order of IPAB - Special leave petition - Held: 
The judgment of High Court was arrived at after elaborate 
consideration of the materials and evidence adduced by the parties 
before it - The conclusions reached by High Court cannot be said E 
to be, in anyway, unreasonable and/or unacceptable - Rather, the 
view recorded by the High Court was a perfectly possible and 
justified - Inteiference with the order of High Court not called for. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
HELD: 
The High Court observed that the view expressed 
F 
by the IPAB that having regard to the class of customers serviced 
by the hotels (High Income) there could be no possibility of being 
misled cannot be accepted as a general proposition and will always 
depend on individual customers. If the High Court on an elaborate 
consideration of the materials and evidence adduced by the parties 
before it had thought it proper to reach a conclusion consistent 
G 
with the findings of the primary authority i.e. the Deputy Registrar 
and the reasons for reversal of the view of the primary authority 
by the IPAB being summary, the present petition really turns on 
the question of appreciation of the evidence on record. The 
conclusions reached by the High Court cannot be said to be, in 
H 
217 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S:C.R. 
A 
anyway, unreasonable and/or unacceptable. Rather, the view 
recorded by the High Court is a perfectly possible and justified 
and the conclusion(s) reached can reasonably flow from a balanced 
consideration of the evidence and materials on record. [Paras 
14, 15] [221-C-F] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(Civil)No.6131 of2015. 
From the final Order dated 11.02.2015 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in W.P. No.22691/2013. 
Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv, Pravin Anand, Shrawan Chopra, Aditya 
Verma, Pundreek Dwivedi, Nikhil Krishnamoorthi, Vikas Singh Jangra, 
Ms.Jennifer Rohita Xavier, Ms. S. Lakshmi, Adv• for the Appellant. 
B.H. Marlapalle, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs, Aniruddha P. Mayee, 
Ajit Wagh, Chirag Jain, Advs for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. After hearing the matter elaborately 
we arrive at the conclusion that the Special Leave Petition ought not to 
be entertained. However, in view of the extensive arguments at the Bar 
we deem it appropriate to support our aforesaid conclusion with the 
reasons therefor. 
2. The bnt:f facts are as follows: 
The petitioner- 'Royal Orchid Hotels Limited' got registration 
of its trademark 'Royal Orchid' and 'Royal Orchid Hotels' in class 16 
sometime in the year 2005. The aforesaid registration was challenged 
by the Respondent No. I before the Intellectual Property Appellate 
Board (for short, 'lPAB') which dismissed the challenge-on 04.10.2011. 
The respondent No. I approached the High Court of Madras by instituting 
Writ Petition Nos.26544-26545 of 2011, which was dismissed by the 
High Court on 07.02.2014. The special leave petition again~t the order 
of the High Court was also dismissed by this Court on 01.09.2014. The 
G 
dispute with regard to registration of the trademarks 'Royal Orchid' and 
Royal Orchid Hotels in class 16, therefore, has attained finality in Jaw. 
3. It appears that the petitioner sometime in the year 2004 applied 
for registration of its aforesaid trad~marks in class 42. This was refused 
by the Deputy Registrar of the Trademarks. In appeal, the IPAB by 
H 
order dated 18.06.2013 set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and 
ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. v. KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.