Delhi High Court
Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. vs B.Vihaya Sai & Anr. on 9 February, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Reserve: January 30, 2009
Date of Order: February 09, 2009
+ CS(OS) No.103/2009
% 09.02.2009
RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS, INC. ...Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Adv.
Versus
B. VIHAYA SAI & ANR. ...Defendants
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff, hospitality company incorporated and
situated in USA has filed a suit against the two defendants
namely defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Defendant no. 2 is a
hotel and defendant no.1 is stated to be Managing Director of the
hotel and both of them are residents/situated at Bangalore. This
suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction
against defendants and their Directors, Agents, etc. restraining
them from using trade mark "SAI RENAISSANCE" or any other
trade mark incorporating word "Renaissance" or deceptively
similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff either for their hotels or
for the hotel related articles and restraining the defendants from
using the trade mark on the Internet as a domain name
www.sairenaissance.com. A prayer is also made for giving
directions for destruction of printed materials or other materials
containing trade mark similar to "RENAISSANCE" and for
damages of Rs.25 lakh.
2. The plaintiff's Counsel was asked to argue on the issue
of territorial jurisdiction of this Court in filing this suit at Delhi
while the defendant's hotel is in Bangalore. The plaintiff has
invoked jurisdiction of Delhi Court under provisions of Section
20(c) of CPC stating that a part of cause of action arose within
the territorial limit of this Court since a travel agent in Delhi viz.
Prakriti Inbound Pvt. Ltd., had done reservation of a room of
defendant's hotel at Bangalore, and also on the ground that the
defendants were targeting customers in Delhi, not only through
travel agent but also on-line and off-line. It is further stated that
this Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit under provisions of Section 134(2) of Trade Mark Act
as the plaintiff was carrying on business at Delhi through on-line
operation by accepting bookings for its Renaissance chain of
hotels for its Delhi based customers.
3. I consider that on the basis of on-line booking from
Delhi of a hotel room situated in USA or situated in Bangalore, the
jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. With the vast spread
of Internet and e-business, booking of a hotel room can be done
from any corner of the world. Merely because a person can get
hotel room booked from any corner of the world, would not mean
that the hotel or the company running hotel was having place of
business at the place of booking through Internet. Similarly,
booking of hotel rooms by hospitality or Travel Agents spread
over throughout the world would not give rise to the presumption
that the Hotel's business was being done at the place of such
agent. The place of business and place of work has to be
understood not looking at the booking through e-mails but where
the actual physical business of hospitality is being done. If the
hotel rooms are available only in Bangalore and can be occupied
and used in Bangalore the place of business of hotel has to be in
Bangalore. The place of business cannot be in Delhi or at any
other place.
4. A perusal of plaint filed by the plaintiff shows that the
defendant no.2, hotel was situated near Shri Satya Sai Baba
Shrine and was being used by the foreign and domestic visitors
visiting the headquarters of Shri Satya Sai Baba.
5. It is plaintiff's own case that in a similar matter where
another hotel in the name of THE RENAISSANCE COCHIN was
situated in Kochi in the State of Kerala, plaintiff filed a similar suit
against that hotel before the District Court at Ernakulam within
whose jurisdiction the hotel was situated and obtained the relief.
In the present case, the plaintiff instead of filing suit in the Court
at Bangalore has preferred to file the suit in Delhi on the ground
of availability of bookings of this hotel rooms in Delhi through an
agent.
6. I consider that no part of cause of action has taken
place in Delhi sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The
plaint is directed to be returned to plaintiff to enable it to present
before the Court of proper jurisdiction.
February 09, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak
