Trademark Dispute: Cordelia Cruises vs. Cordelia Inn
In the evolving landscape of intellectual property law in India, disputes over trademark infringement and passing off are increasingly prevalent, particularly in industries where brand identity plays a pivotal role in consumer perception. The case of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal and Others is a significant judicial pronouncement by the High Court of Delhi that addresses the conflict between two entities operating in the hospitality sector over the use of the trademark “Cordelia.” This case study delves into the legal intricacies of the dispute, examining the arguments presented by both parties, the court’s reasoning, and the broader implications for trademark law in India.
Factual Background
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited, the plaintiff, is a company engaged in providing luxury ocean cruise tourism services under the trademark “Cordelia Cruises.” The plaintiff adopted this mark in November 2020 and secured its domain name, www.cordeliacruises.com, in December 2020. On January 4, 2021, the plaintiff applied for trademark registration for “Cordelia” in Classes 39, 41, and 43 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and subsequently obtained registration in these classes.
The plaintiff demonstrated continuous use of the mark since 2021, achieving significant goodwill and recognition in the hospitality industry, evidenced by a turnover increase from Rs. 30.92 lakhs in 2020–2021 to Rs. 48.53 crores in 2022–2023, along with various industry awards.
The defendants, led by Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal, operate a land-based hotel in Rishikesh under the mark “Cordelia Inn,” which they claim to have adopted in August 2022. They registered the domain name www.hotcordeliainn.com and applied for trademark registration for “Cordelia Inn” in Class 43 on August 4, 2022. The Trade Marks Registry raised an objection on December 28, 2022, citing the plaintiff’s registered mark.
Despite a cease-and-desist notice issued by the plaintiff on August 22, 2024, the defendants continued using the mark, prompting the plaintiff to file a suit for trademark infringement and passing off, along with an application for an interim injunction.
Procedural Background
The case was filed before the High Court of Delhi as CS(COMM) 42/2025, with the plaintiff seeking an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The application, numbered I.A. 1268/2025, was heard by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who reserved the judgment on July 11, 2025, and pronounced it on July 28, 2025.
The plaintiff was represented by Ms. Kripa Pandit and others, while the defendants were represented by Ms. Kangana Roda and her team. Both parties presented extensive arguments, supported by documentary evidence and case law.
Core Dispute
The central issue revolves around whether the defendants’ use of the mark “Cordelia Inn” constitutes trademark infringement and passing off in relation to the plaintiff’s registered mark “Cordelia Cruises.”
The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ mark is deceptively similar, likely to cause consumer confusion, and an attempt to capitalize on the plaintiff’s goodwill. The defendants countered that their mark was adopted in good faith, that “Cordelia” is a generic term, and that their hotel services are distinct from cruise services, negating any likelihood of confusion.
Discussion on Judgments
The plaintiff relied on several precedents including:
- Somany Ceramics Limited v. Shri Ganesh Electric Co. – Prior use confers exclusive rights.
- Cease-and-desist notice continued use argued as evidence of mala fide intent.
The defendants relied on:
- Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh – Need to prove prima facie case and actual harm.
- Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna – Device mark doesn’t confer rights over individual words.
- Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit – “Cordelia” argued as generic.
- Several other judgments to establish lack of consumer confusion and market separation.
The court referred to:
- Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan – Proprietary claim invalidates generic claim.
- United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals – Protection of word within label mark.
- Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. and others – Suffixes/prefixes do not prevent confusion.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized:
- Plaintiff’s prior registration and evidence of use were sufficient to establish ownership.
- Both businesses operate under Class 43 and in similar online marketplaces, increasing confusion.
- Visual and phonetic similarity of “Cordelia Cruises” and “Cordelia Inn.”
- Use of palm tree imagery and continuation post notice seen as bad faith.
- Triple test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm) satisfied.
Final Decision
On July 28, 2025, the High Court of Delhi granted the interim injunction. The defendants were:
- Restrained from using, marketing, or advertising “Cordelia Inn” or any similar mark.
- Ordered to remove all references from online platforms and transfer the domain hotelcordeliainn.com to the plaintiff.
The matter is listed for further proceedings on September 23, 2025.
Law Settled in This Case
- Prior adoption and registration confer exclusive rights under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Label marks extend protection to prominent words.
- Genericity cannot be claimed if proprietary rights are simultaneously asserted.
- Similarity in class and trade channels can lead to confusion even in different service formats.
- Prefixes/suffixes do not sufficiently differentiate a mark.
- Courts are willing to grant injunctions where the triple test is met.
Case Details
Case Title: Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited Vs. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal and Others
Date of Order: July 28, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 42/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6127
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Shri Saurabh Banerjee
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
