Trans-border reputation supports passing off and interim injunction where a mark has goodwill in India and confusion is likely.

A passing off action and ad interim injunction can be maintained on the basis of trans-border reputation even where the plaintiff has no hotel business in India, if the mark has acquired goodwill and reputation in India through worldwide use, publicity, and Indian customer exposure abroad. The Court found a prima facie reputation, a real risk of confusion and false association from use of a similar hospitality-sector name, and sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm. On that basis, the refusal of interim relief was set aside and ad interim injunction was granted in support of the passing off claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a passing off action and interim injunction could be maintained on the basis of trans-border reputation even though the plaintiff did not carry on hotel business in India; (ii) whether the plaintiff had shown a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury so as to justify ad interim injunction against use of the impugned name.

Issue (i): whether a passing off action and interim injunction could be maintained on the basis of trans-border reputation even though the plaintiff did not carry on hotel business in India.

Analysis: The relevant test was not confined to actual business operations or the existence of a hotel in India. The materials showed worldwide use of the mark, extensive publicity in publications circulating in India, appointment of sales agents in India, Indian customers using the services abroad, and a substantial reputation travelling into India. On that footing, reputation and goodwill were held to exist in India for the purposes of protecting the service mark in a passing off action.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff had shown a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury so as to justify ad interim injunction against use of the impugned name.

Analysis: The Court found that the plaintiff's reputation was established prima facie, that the defendant's use of a similar name in the hospitality sector carried a real risk of confusion and false association, and that the defendant's later adoption of the impugned name in hotel-related business strengthened the plaintiff's apprehension of harm. The Court therefore held that discretion had been exercised on an erroneous view of the law and that interim protection was warranted.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the refusal of interim relief was set aside, and ad interim injunction was granted in support of the passing off claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff can obtain protection against passing off and interim injunction on the basis of trans-border reputation and goodwill, even without carrying on business in India, if the mark has acquired reputation in India and the impugned use creates a real likelihood of confusion and commercial association.

---