The name 𝗥𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗮 is instantly recognizable in the hospitality industry. With hotels across the globe, the brand has built a reputation over decades. But when a lesser-known entity—𝗖𝗹𝘂𝗯𝗥𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗮 Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.—began using the name ‘Ramada’ to promote its business, a legal battle was inevitable.
What followed was a 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, defiance of court orders, and ultimately, a decisive judgment in favor of brand protection.
𝗔 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁
Ramada International, Inc., which owns the globally recognized ‘Ramada’ brand, first discovered the issue in 𝗡𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟬. A company called ClubRamada Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. had started using the ‘Club Ramada’ name across websites, social media, and marketing materials. They even registered domain names like 𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.𝗰𝗼𝗺, misleading customers into believing they were affiliated with the well-established Ramada hotels.
The problem? 𝗖𝗹𝘂𝗯 𝗥𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘀.
Despite using the name, branding, and even pictures of Ramada hotels in 𝗔𝗴𝗿𝗮, 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗸𝗼𝗸, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗲, the company was merely offering vacation packages, resort bookings, and car rentals—without any legitimate association with the real Ramada franchise.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽𝘀 𝗜𝗻
Ramada International took the matter to the Delhi High Court, seeking a 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 to stop Club Ramada from using its mark.
• In December 2021, the court issued an ex parte interim injunction, restraining Club Ramada from using the name.
• Yet, the company continued its activities, leading to a second order in November 2022, warning them to cease operations under the infringing name.
• By July 2023, after multiple violations, the Managing Director of Club Ramada was summoned to court. The court found no reasonable justification for their continued misuse and ordered them to deposit ₹5 lakhs as a penalty for their defiance.
𝗡𝗼 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗡𝗼 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲
Despite repeated court warnings, Club Ramada refused to comply. The court had given them a final chance in November 2023, but they still failed to stop using the mark.
By February 2025, with no defense left to offer and their counsel abandoning the case, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ramada International. The court not only permanently restrained Club Ramada from using the brand but also imposed:
• ₹10 lakh in damages
• Actual legal costs to be reimbursed to Ramada International
Access judgement here: https://lnkd.in/gG375fvW
📖 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗯𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀. Follow mentblue for your mentorship needs.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.