Establishing Criteria for Declaring “RITZ” and “RITZ-CARLTON” as Well-Known Trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999

1. Introduction

In The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. M S Hotel Ritz & Ors. (2025 DHC 4725), the Delhi High Court was called upon to protect two storied hotel‐service marks—“RITZ” and “RITZ-CARLTON”—against alleged infringement and passing off by a domestic competitor using deceptively similar names and domain names. The plaintiffs are:

The Ritz Hotel Limited (original owner of “The Ritz Paris” since 1898, licensed its marks to plaintiff no. 3);
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. (owner of the “RITZ-CARLTON” marks, operating luxury hotels in India since 2013); and
Ritz Paris S.A. (global owner of the family of “RITZ” formative marks).

The defendants operated under “Hotel Ritz” and related domain names, allegedly leading to consumer confusion and dilution of the plaintiffs’ global goodwill. Key issues included:

Whether the defendants’ use of “RITZ” formative marks infringed registered rights and/or constituted passing off;
Whether the plaintiffs’ marks qualified as “well-known trademarks” under Sections 2(1)(zg), 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; and
Scope of ancillary reliefs, including injunctions, domain‐name takedown and a declaratory decree.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Hon’ble Justice Amit Bansal delivered an oral ruling on May 29, 2025, granting the plaintiffs:

Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using “RITZ” or “RITZ-CARLTON” formative marks, related domain names (www.ritz-hotels.com, www.thehotelritz.com) and infringing stationery or marketing material (prayer clauses 88(a), (b), (c), (e)).
Declaratory relief under prayer clause 88(d), formally recognising “RITZ” and “RITZ-CARLTON” as well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11(6) read with Section 11(7) of the Act.

The court recorded that the defendants had partially complied with interim orders but continued to infringe in stationery and online platforms. Having reviewed voluminous evidence (historic use since 1898, global registrations, promotional campaigns, awards, domain-name registrations, prior enforcement orders domestically and internationally), the court held that the plaintiffs satisfied each statutory criterion for well-known status and were entitled to full relief.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Statutory Framework Cited

Although no specific prior judicial decisions are named in the text, the court drew directly on the statutory framework laid down by the Trade Marks Act, 1999:

Section 2(1)(zg) – Definition of “well-known trademark” (threshold: mark known to a substantial segment of relevant public such that unauthorized use implies a connection).
Section 11(6) – Factors to determine well-known status (public recognition, duration & extent of use, promotion, registrations, enforcement record).
Section 11(7) – Sub-factors to gauge public knowledge (number of consumers, distribution channels, business circles).

In addition, the plaintiffs relied upon a body of administrative and quasi-judicial rulings:

Prior Delhi High Court orders protecting the RITZ marks (Ex. PW 1/5).
UDRP/WIPO domain decisions recognising the plaintiffs’ marks as well-known (Ex. PW 1/7).
Foreign court orders enforcing Ritz intellectual property (Ex. PW 1/8).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning tracks the statutory scheme step by step:

Knowledge & Recognition (Section 11(6)(i)): Historic visits by Indian dignitaries to The Ritz Paris, coverage in books and films, awards in India (Conde Nast, Times Food Awards), press coverage (Ex. PW 1/11 to Ex. PW 1/15).
Duration & Extent of Use (Section 11(6)(ii)): Continuous global operation since 1898 (RITZ) and since 1969 in India; Ritz-Carlton network revenues exceeding USD 6 billion (2024); dozens of Indian & international registrations (Ex. PW 1/1 to Ex. PW 1/3).
Promotion & Publicity (Section 11(6)(iii)): Advertising campaigns at trade fairs, leading-hotel recognitions, social-media presence, third-party travel websites (Ex. PW 1/10 to Ex. PW 1/17).
Registrations (Section 11(6)(iv)): Long-standing Indian registrations (e.g., No. 258396 filed in 1969), domain-name registrations, international mark portfolios.
Enforcement Record (Section 11(6)(v)): Successful litigation in India and abroad, UDRP triumphs, abandoned applications of infringers.

On this foundation, the court concluded that no other mark could lawfully appropriate “RITZ” or “RITZ-CARLTON” in the hospitality sector without misleading consumers. The defendants’ proposed alternative spellings (“RITIZ”, “RITS”) were likewise rejected as deceptively similar.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases and on Trademark Law

This decision carries several forward-looking implications:

Expanded Well-Known Criteria: Confirms that international historical stature, film/literary references and digital/domain presence are valid metrics under Section 11(6).
Digital Domain Enforcement: Emphasises takedown of infringing domain names as part of injunctive relief, signalling to brand-owners the importance of proactive domain monitoring.
Broad Relief Package: Validates a package of remedies—permanent injunction, declaratory decree, domain-name blockade & stationary/online-material takedown.
Hospitality Sector Precedent: First comprehensive Delhi HC ruling to declare a global hotel chain’s marks as well-known, paving the way for similar protection of luxury-service brands.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Well-Known Trademark: A mark so widely recognized by a large segment of the public that its use by another would suggest a false connection.
Section 11(6) Factors: Statutory yardsticks—public awareness, use history, promotional efforts, registrations, enforcement record.
Passing Off: At common law, preventing misrepresentation that goods/services originate from a rival.
Permanent Injunction: Court-ordered prohibition on continued infringing activity without further application.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. M S Hotel Ritz & Ors. firmly establishes that globally celebrated service marks, even if foreign-origin, can be declared “well-known” in India when supported by historic use, extensive promotion, strong consumer recognition and robust enforcement. By meticulously applying Sections 2(1)(zg), 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court has delivered a blueprint for luxury-service brands to secure broad preventive relief—extending beyond mere trademarks to digital domains and marketing collateral. This decision will guide future litigants in assembling multi-dimensional evidence and reinforce India’s commitment to protecting international goodwill against dilution or misappropriation.