HOLIDAY INN INC Vs. KAPOOR HOLIDAY INN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Holiday Inn Inc., 3742, Lamar Avenue. Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A. is the plaintiff in Suit No. 16261 1983 and Suit No. 1627/1983. Though the defendants in both the suits represent two different establishments, running hotel lodgings but as the cause of action for filing of the suit and the relief claimed is almost similar, learned counsel for the parties agreed that both the suits can conveniently be disposed of on the evidence to be recorded in Suit No. 1626/1983. Vide order dated 29-8-1985 passed in Suit No. 1627/1983 both the suits were consolidated and the evidence was ordered to be recorded in the earlier suit which shall be read as evidence in the second suit as well. For the purpose of deciding the controversy in the two suits, the facts of Suit No. 1626/1983 are being taken up.

(2.) The plaintiff is a U.S. Corporation incorporated under the laws of the Slate of Tennessee, U.S.A. Shri V. Sagar and Shri J. Sagar are the plaintiff's constituted attorneys authorised jointly and severally to sign, verify an institute the present suit. The defendant is carrying on the business of providing lodgings under the name and style of 'Kapoor Holiday Inn' at F-39. East of Kailash, New Delhi.

(3.) As per the averments the plaintiff operates throughout the world, including India, the latest chain of hotels and motels under the name and style of "Holiday Inn'. At prevent the total number of such hotels and motels is 1756 with a total of 3,10,000 guest rooms. Of the 1756 hotels 231 are managed by the plaintiff and the balance of 1525 are franchised hotels. The franchised hotels are licensed to use the plaintiff's trading style 'Holiday Inn'. The plaintiff opened its first hotel in Asia in 1973 but today it has 22 hotels, of which 7 are managed by the plaintiff and the remaining are franchised. On account of the excellant standands of service provided by the plaintiffs claim of hoets over the last 30 years they have acquired a very high reputation and the words 'Holiday Inn' have come to be associated here- with and the plantiff''s business exclusively. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor in India of the trade marks, the details of which are mentioned in the plaint. The said trade marks are valid and subsisting.