Initial-Interest Confusion as Sufficient Ground for Trademark Infringement and Ex‑Parte Summary Judgment: Hotels.com, LP v. Barath M L (Delhi High Court, 2025)

Introduction

In a decisive enforcement order in the digital and platform economy space, the Delhi High Court has granted a summary decree in favour of Hotels.com, LP against the defendants’ use of the marks “HOTELCOM” and a related logo, including the domain hotelcom.live. The case sits at the intersection of trademark law, online brand protection, and civil procedure under the Commercial Courts regime. It advances two key themes:

• Substantive: The sufficiency of “initial interest confusion” to establish infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly in cases of deceptively similar domain and app names used to divert traffic.
• Procedural: The court’s readiness to grant ex‑parte summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC where the defendants fail to participate, coupled with the award of lump-sum damages and costs.

The Plaintiff, Hotels.com, LP, a globally recognised hotel booking platform with extensive Indian user engagement, claimed infringement and passing off against the defendants’ use of “HOTELCOM” across trademark applications, a domain name, and mobile app listings. The defendants, despite service, did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. Justice Tejas Karia decreed the suit under Order XIII-A of the CPC, granted a permanent injunction in terms of the plaint, and awarded Rs. 5 lakhs as damages and costs.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment (Order XIII-A Rules 3 and 6(1)(a), CPC), holding that:

• The defendants’ marks “HOTELCOM” and their domain hotelcom.live are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered mark “HOTELS.COM” and associated domain hotels.com.
• Given the overall similarity and overlapping consumer base and trade channels, there is a likelihood of confusion, including “initial interest confusion,” sufficient to establish infringement under Section 29.
• The Plaintiff also established passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation by the defendants, and consequent injury to reputation.
• Since the defendants failed to appear, file a written statement, or file the affidavit of admission/denial, the averments and documents in the plaint stood deemed admitted (Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, Rule 3), obviating the need for trial.
• A permanent injunction was granted in the terms prayed (para 45(a)-(e) of the plaint), and the defendants were directed to pay ₹5,00,000 as damages and costs.

The Court anchored its approach in precedent endorsing initial interest confusion and the award of damages in ex‑parte scenarios where defendants evade proceedings.

Detailed Analysis

Factual Matrix and Procedural Posture

Hotels.com, LP, a global accommodation-booking platform, adopted the “HOTELS.COM” brand in 2002 and operates the hotels.com domain since 1994 through its parent, Expedia Inc. The plaintiff presented significant Indian market presence: an India-specific site (in.hotels.com), over 17 million unique Indian visitors (2019), and more than 2 million room nights booked from India between 2010–2023 (USD 200 million gross booking value). In India, “HOTELS.COM” is registered in Classes 9, 35, and 43 (Application No. 6408702; user claim since 08.12.2008).

The defendants adopted “HOTELCOM,” filed trademark applications across Classes 9, 35, 38, and 42, operated the domain hotelcom.live, and published a mobile app “HOTELCOM” on app stores (published 14.12.2022). They claimed their services targeted hotel owners with a “digital room service communication and management platform” replacing traditional intercoms. After a cease-and-desist exchange, oppositions were filed. The defendants did not file evidence in opposition proceedings within time and, in the suit, failed to appear; their right to file a written statement was closed on 07.05.2025, and they were proceeded ex-parte.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784
  The Court expressly relied on Under Armour for the “initial interest confusion” doctrine: confusion arising at the preliminary stage (e.g., being lured to a website by a deceptively similar mark) is sufficient for infringement under Section 29, even if the consumer realises the true origin at the point of purchase. The infringer’s objective—diverting initial consumer attention—is harmful enough to constitute actionable confusion. This principle squarely applied to “HOTELCOM” and hotelcom.live, where the name’s similarity could drive traffic by exploiting Hotels.com’s goodwill.
• Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6717; Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Harish Chaudhary, CS(Comm) 106/2020
  Cited to underscore that defendants who stay away from proceedings cannot benefit from their evasion. The Court drew on these decisions to justify awarding damages and costs even ex-parte, ensuring non-participation does not become a strategy to avoid liability.
• Cartier International A.G. v. Gaurav Bhatia
  Invoked to support the policy rationale for ex-parte damages: a defendant who avoids court scrutiny should not escape monetary consequences simply because records were not produced. The decision bolstered the Court’s award of a lump-sum Rs. 5 lakhs toward damages and costs.

Legal Reasoning

1) Summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC

The Court emphasised that summary judgment is appropriate where the defendants have “no real prospect” of successfully defending the claim and the Court can make necessary findings based on pleadings and documents without trial. In commercial suits—especially IP enforcement—Order XIII-A enables swift disposal when facts are uncontested or deemed admitted. Here:

• No written statement was filed; the defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
• The plaint was verified by affidavit, and no affidavit of admission/denial was filed by the defendants—hence, documents were deemed admitted (Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, Rule 3).
• In these circumstances, there was no purpose in putting the matter to trial.

2) Trademark Infringement (Section 29, Trade Marks Act, 1999)

The Court compared “HOTELS.COM” and “HOTELCOM” and found near identity at phonetic and structural levels. Additional factors:

• Prior adoption and goodwill: Hotels.com’s long-standing global and Indian presence, registrations, and domain use since 1994 supported reputation and secondary meaning.
• Overlap of trade channels and consumer base: Despite the defendants’ B2B positioning, both parties operated online, targeted hotel-related services, and could intersect in the journey of a consumer booking and experiencing hotel services. The goods/services were “allied and cognate,” increasing likelihood of association.
• Initial interest confusion: Even if users ultimately discern that hotelcom.live is not affiliated with Hotels.com, the diversion of initial attention by a deceptively similar domain and app name suffices for infringement. This captures the harm of free-riding on the plaintiff’s goodwill to generate traffic.

The Court concluded that a “clear case of infringement” was made out: similarity of marks, overlapping channels, and a likely consumer association between defendants’ services and the plaintiff’s brand.

3) Passing off

The familiar trinity of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—was present:

• Goodwill: Extensive use, consumer traffic, app downloads, and collaborations with major hotel brands established significant goodwill.
• Misrepresentation: Adoption of “HOTELCOM,” a near-identical variant, in domains and app stores, risked consumers perceiving an association or extension of Hotels.com’s services.
• Damage: Such association was likely to injure Hotels.com’s hard-earned reputation and business, satisfying passing off’s injury limb.

4) Domain names and deceptive similarity

The Court underscored that using a domain deceptively similar to a reputed trademark is impermissible. Deceptive similarity in domain names magnifies the risk of initial interest confusion because domain recall and search behaviour often guide initial consumer clicks. In the app ecosystem, similar naming has the same effect.

5) Remedies, ex-parte damages, and costs

Relying on Inter Ikea and Cartier, the Court awarded Rs. 5 lakhs as combined damages and costs. The rationale is deterrence and fairness: defendants cannot benefit from non-participation and thereby avoid monetary accountability. The permanent injunction was granted as prayed (para 45(a)-(e)), and the earlier interim measures (take-down of social media presence and restraint on domain transfer) demonstrate the Court’s practical orientation towards effective digital enforcement.

Impact and Significance

• Consolidation of initial interest confusion in Indian trademark jurisprudence: Alongside Under Armour, this decision cements initial interest confusion as sufficient to establish infringement under Section 29. It is especially salient for online contexts where user attention and click-through are paramount.
• Applicability to allied and cognate services: Even where defendants pitch B2B hotel-tech solutions, the Court found the services allied/cognate to Hotels.com’s hospitality ecosystem. That the end-user may be a hotel does not immunise the infringer when public-facing brand use rides on another’s goodwill.
• Domain and app name enforcement: The case underscores that deceptively similar domain and app names, even absent exact category overlap, can trigger infringement and passing off, particularly if they cause diversion at the initial stage.
• Procedural efficiency in commercial IP suits: The Court’s use of Order XIII-A signals a robust willingness to summarily decree where defendants default. Coupled with deemed admissions under DHC OS Rules, plaintiffs with solid documentary records can expect expedited relief.
• Ex-parte damages culture: By awarding a lump-sum despite non-participation, the Court reinforces a deterrent framework. Evasion will not reduce liability; rather, it may streamline plaintiff’s path to both injunction and money relief.
• Practical guidance to startups and tech providers: Adopting names closely resembling established brands—even with arguably descriptive elements and across adjacent service lines—poses substantial legal risk. Claims like “sophisticated B2B buyers won’t be confused” will carry little persuasive weight against evidence of brand strength and online diversion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Initial interest confusion: A form of trademark confusion that occurs at the outset of a consumer’s journey—e.g., being lured to a website or app by a name similar to a famous brand. Even if the consumer realises later that the site is unrelated, the initial diversion itself is actionable.
• Allied and cognate goods/services: Products or services that, while not identical, are sufficiently related in nature, trade channels, or target consumers that the public may think they originate from the same source (e.g., hotel booking services and hotel communication software in a hotel’s service chain).
• Passing off: A common-law remedy protecting unregistered goodwill. The plaintiff must show (i) goodwill in the mark, (ii) misrepresentation by the defendant leading the public to believe the defendant’s goods/services are those of the plaintiff, and (iii) damage to the plaintiff’s goodwill.
• Summary judgment (Order XIII-A CPC): A mechanism in commercial suits allowing the court to decide a case without trial when the defendant has no real prospect of success and crucial facts are undisputed or proved by documents.
• Ex-parte proceedings and deemed admissions: If a defendant, despite service, does not appear or file required pleadings (including the affidavit of admission/denial of documents), the court may proceed without them, and the plaintiff’s documents can be treated as admitted under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
• Section 29, Trade Marks Act, 1999: The central infringement provision. It prohibits use of identical or deceptively similar marks for identical/similar goods/services where likelihood of confusion exists. This judgment reiterates that confusion at the initial stage suffices.

Conclusion

Hotels.com, LP v. Barath M L fortifies two consequential strands in Indian IP enforcement: (i) initial interest confusion is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Section 29, particularly in online contexts involving domains and apps; and (ii) procedural tools under the Commercial Courts regime—Order XIII-A summary judgment and deemed admissions under the DHC OS Rules—will be deployed to promptly decree suits where defendants evince no real prospect of defence.

For rights holders, the decision underscores the value of maintaining strong documentary trails—registrations, usage evidence, market metrics—and proactively using summary judgment to avoid protracted trials. For market participants, especially in the digital and hospitality-tech domains, the message is cautionary: proximity to famous brand names, even across allied service lines and in B2B settings, risks swift injunctive relief and damages. By awarding ex-parte damages and costs, the Court also signals that procedural evasion will not shield infringers from financial liability.

In sum, the judgment is a robust reaffirmation of origin-indicating function in the age of clicks and search, aligning Indian jurisprudence with contemporary realities of online consumer attention and platform discovery.

Case Snapshot

• Court: High Court of Delhi
• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
• Case: CS(COMM) 1133/2024; IA No. 18971/2025
• Date: 26 September 2025
• Parties: Hotels.com, LP (Plaintiff) v. Barath M L & Anr. (Defendants)
• Holding: Summary decree; permanent injunction; Rs. 5,00,000 as damages and costs
• Key Doctrines: Initial interest confusion; allied and cognate services; Order XIII-A summary judgment; ex-parte damages