Delhi District Court
Ms Hkv Hospitality vs Ms Yeti Group Ans on 15 November, 2025
DLST010022442016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
TM No. 78/2016
Filing No. 26238/2016
CNR No. DLST01-002244-2016
In the matter of
M/s HKV Hospitality
Through its Partner:
Shri Satinder Singh Sarna,
Having office at:
50 D, Flat 3C
1st Floor, Hauz Khas Village
New Delhi- 110017 ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s Yeti Group
Having office at:
40/60, 3rd Floor,
Chitranjan Park
New Delhi .......Defendant No.1
Mr. Tenzing Sonam
R/o 197, Tarun Enclave,
New Delhi-110034 ......Defendant No.2
TM 78/16 Page. 1 of 16
M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors
Date of Institution : 05.07.2016
Date of reserving the judgment : 15.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2025
Decision : Suit Decreed
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF.................................................3
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS.............................................6
III. ISSUES FRAMED........................................................................................ 6
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PARTIES...................................................................7
V. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES..................................8
VI. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO..................................9
i. Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to
the effect that plaintiff's trademark/logo LAMA KITCHEN is distinct and
is dissimilar to the trademark/logo YETI of the defendant?.......................9
ii. Issue no 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of a decree of
permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from
making threats of legal proceedings against the plaintiff or its
representatives?........................................................................................ 14
iii. Issue no 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek damages from the
defendants as claimed in para-d of the prayer clause?............................15
VII. RELIEF......................................................................................................15
TM 78/16 Page. 2 of 16
M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
1.The facts as asseverated by the Plaintiff are hereby succinctly recapitulated: The plaintiff, being a partner in M/s HKV Hospitality along with with his son, runs his business of a restaurant in the name and style of "LAMA KITCHEN" for the past several years and owns several businesses including but not limited to Khazana India, Khazana Hospitality, HKV Hospitality, and Vintero Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. It has been averred that the plaintiff is a social worker and also had been elected as the President of Hauz Khas Village Traders Association.
2. It was brought to the fore that in the year 2016, the plaintiff, while expanding its hospitality business, opened a restaurant called "LAMA KITCHEN", in Hauz-Khas Village, New Delhi, to serve a wide range of food and cuisine originating from the Himalayan belt to its customers. It was further asserted that the plaintiff being inspired from the pristine and serene beauty of Himalayan mountains, honestly and bona fidely conceived and adopted the trade mark/ trade name "LAMA KITCHEN" also consisting an artistic logo constituting the word/mark LAMA KITCHEN and an artistic device of mountains, five colourful flags and in an artistic background containing artistic features of writing style, colour combination, font size etc. TM 78/16 Page. 3 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors
3. It was also alleged that the copyrights involved in the said LAMA KITCHEN trade mark/logo are original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyright act, 1957 (Copyright Act) and the plaintiff is the author, owner and proprietor of the copyrights therein all references to the said "LAMA KITCHEN" trade mark/logo include their respective copyrights therein. That ever since its bona fide and honest adoption and creation in the month of February, 2016 of the "LAMA KITCHEN" trade mark/logo, plaintiff has been honestly, bonafidely, continuously, commercial, openly, exclusively and to the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and the course of trade and as proprietor thereof has been using its said respective trade mark/logo as trade marks in relation to its said services and business and built up a valuable trade, goodwill and reputation and acquired proprietary rights therein in a very short span of time.
4. It was brought to the fore that the defendants through their legal notice dated 20.06.2016 threatened the plaintiff to stop its business in the name and style of "LAMA KITCHEN". It was further alleged that the defendants made allegations on the plaintiff of maliciously infringing the trade mark of the defendants for running restaurant despite knowledge of defendant's trade mark "Yeti" and that the defendants also threatened the plaintiff to circulate clarification/disclaimer in TM 78/16 Page. 4 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors all major newspapers clarifying that the trademark of the plaintiff has no relation with the trade mark of defendants.
5. It was also stated that the defendants threatened the plaintiff to stop its business under the trademark/logo "LAMA KITCHEN" failing which defendants would institute legal proceedings against the plaintiff. It was further stated that these threats of instituting legal proceedings are groundless, misconceived and malicious as plaintiff has a right to do business/trade under the trademark logo "LAMA KITCHEN"
and does not infringe or violate any of the rights of the defendant, even under the Trade Mark Act or Copyright Act or otherwise under common law principles.
6. It was stated that the defendants threatened the plaintiff with legal action and such proceedings would greatly affect the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and also cause grave and irreparable loss and damages to the plaintiff's well established goods and business under the said trademark besides putting the plaintiff to tremendous pecuniary, business, mental and physical loss and that the plaintiff therefore approached this Court to safeguard its business interests and rights under its said trademark/label/logo.
7. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit u/s 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 60 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 seeking declaration that the threats meted out vide legal notice dated 20.06.2016 i.e. Ex PW1/6 are unjustifiable, TM 78/16 Page. 5 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors seeking injunction restraining defendants from issuing groundless threats and seeking damages for a sum of Rs 6,00,000/-
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS
8. As per the record, summons were issued to the defendants and counsel for the defendants no 1 and 2 filed vakalatnama on 01.08.2016. Written statement filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2, wherein they denied the allegations as mentioned in the plaint. During the proceedings, defendants also filed joint counter claim on 16.08.2016 along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The said counter claim was dismissed in default for non-prosecution vide order dated 28.07.2017.
9. Defendants were also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.07.2017. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was moved by the defendants on 25.07.2018, which was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2018. However, due to non-payment of the cost imposed upon the defendant, the defendants were again proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.01.2019. On 12.05.2023, plaintiff's evidence was concluded and matter was listed for final arguments.
III. ISSUES FRAMED
10.Vide order dated 04.01.2019 following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of TM 78/16 Page. 6 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors declaration to the effect that plaintiff's trademark/logo LAMA KITCHEN is distinct and is dissimilar to the trademark/logo YETI of the defendant?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from making threats of legal proceedings against the plaintiff or its representatives? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek damages from the defendants as claimed in para-d of the prayer clause? OPP
4. Relief.
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PARTIES
11. In the proceeding only one witness was examined, succinct testimony whereof is as follows:
12.PW-1 Sh. Satinder Singh Sarna, Partner, HKV Hospitality: He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. photocopy of the partnership Deed dated 21.03.2016 as Ex PW1/1, Coloured photocopy of review of Lama Kitchen as Ex PW1/2, photographs of the scenery taken by the plaintiff inspiration for the Trade Mark as Ex PW1/3, certified copy of Registration Certificate of Trade Mark no 3252319 under class 43 as Ex PW1/4, certified copy of Registration Certificate of Trade Mark no 3256267 under class 43 as Ex PW1/5, photocopy of legal notice issued by the defendant to TM 78/16 Page. 7 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors the plaintiff as Ex PW1/6 and photocopy of the trade mark certificate of the defendant as Mark A. Plaintiff did not examine any other witness in its evidence. PE was closed vide order dated 12.05.2023. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments V. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
13. Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had contended that the trade mark LAMA KITCHEN was duly registered, and therefore the plaintiff had the requisite proprietary rights to use the same, to the exclusion of others. It was vehemently contended that the trade mark of the defendants were totally dissimilar to the mark of the plaintiff, a fact which is apparent upon a bare perusal of Table-1 i.e. a comparison chart furnished by the plaintiff:
TABLE 1 Plaintiff's trademark Defendant's trademark TM 78/16 Page. 8 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors
14. It was contended that the trade mark of the defendants 'Yeti' is completely distinct from the trade mark of the plaintiff that the consumers would not be confused at all. Under these circumstances, sending of a legal notice threatening plaintiff to stop its business in the name and style of LAMA KITCHEN, insinuating allegations of infringement tantamount to issuance of groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
VI. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO i. Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff's trademark/logo LAMA KITCHEN is distinct and is dissimilar to the trademark/logo YETI of the defendant?
REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARK
15. At the first instance, the Plaintiff is required to establish its proprietary rights qua the trade marks in question. In this regard, the plaintiff adduced certificates of trade mark registrations of logo LAMA KITCHEN as Ex PW1/4 and certificates of trade mark registration of word LAMA KITCHEN as Ex PW1/5. Para 11 of the plaint, which is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity, also delienates qua the trade mark registrations of the plaintiff. It is to be borne in mind that in a matter pertaining to infringement of a trade mark, the Court has to peruse either the Legal Proceeding TM 78/16 Page. 9 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors Certificate (LPC) or Registration Certificate along with the extract from the Journal, in order to ascertain whether the trade mark has been registered or not. The LPC would reflect the mark, the date of application, date of user claimed, conditions and disclaimers any, assignments and licenses granted, renewals etc.(see Amrish Agarwal v M/s Venus Home Appliances Pvt Ltd 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9966 ). PW-1 Sh Satender Singh Sarma deposed before this Court on 12.05.2023, and proved the plaintiff's certified copy of Registration Certificate of Trade Mark no 3252319 under Class 43 as Ex PW1/4 and certified copy of Registration Certificate of Trade Mark no 3256267 under class 43 as Ex PW1/5. These certificates would make it abundantly explicit that the Plaintiff had its trade marks inter alia LAMA KITCHEN duly registered.
EFFECT OF REGISTRATION
16. Thus, a right accrued in the Plaintiff to institute a suit for injunction to restrain the Defendants from manufacturing, storing and selling the counterfeit products bearing its trade mark. Such a right also extends to defend cases of malicious prosecution initiated or sought to be initiated against the plaintiff qua the registered trade mark. Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 clarifies that the valid registration of a trademark shall confer on the registered owner of the trademark exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to TM 78/16 Page. 10 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors the goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered. The Section further empowers the owner of the trademark to obtain relief in respect of infringement of trademark in the matter provided under the Act. Section 134 of the Act provides the remedy of filing a suit for infringement of a trademark while Section 135 of the Act describes the relief which may be granted in a suit for infringement or passing off the trademark. INFRINGEMENT
17. Section 29 of the Act defines the meaning of infringement of a registered trademark. It provides that a registered trademark is infringed by a person, who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to, the trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trademark. Sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Act further clarifies that a trademark is infringed by using a mark which is identical or similar with the registered trademark to an extent that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of public that it has an association with the registered trademark. Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 of the Act provides a presumption in respect of a marks that is likely to create confusion on the part of the public on account of its TM 78/16 Page. 11 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors identity with the registered trademark and the identity of goods or services covered by such registered trademark.
18. In Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai, (2022) 5 SCC 1, the law qua infringement was expounded as thus:
""The legislative scheme is clear that when the mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the goods or services covered are similar to the ones covered by such registered trade mark, it may be necessary to prove that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark. Similarly, when the trade mark of the plaintiff is similar to the registered trade mark of the defendant and the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark are identical or similar to the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, it may again be necessary to establish that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public. However, when the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public"
19.The likelihood of confusion or deception amongst the consuming public is a sine qua non element in an action for infringement or passing off. The degree of deception cannot be established by laying down any objective standards.
20.The deception has necessarily to be ascertained by a comparison of the two marks. The resemblance may be phonetic, visual or in the basic idea represented by the plaintiff's mark.(see Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd. v TM 78/16 Page. 12 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors Karanveer Singh Chhabra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701) The purpose of the comparison is for determining whether the essential features of the plaintiff's trade mark are to be found in that used by the defendant.
21. Now, coming to the aspect whether the plaintiff has infringed the trademark of the defendants. This Court has perused the comparison chart of the goods of the plaintiff as well as the defendants as illustrated in Table-I. A close scrutiny thereof would make it explicit that both the Logos are entirely different and do not even remotely resemble each other. The colour scheme, the font size, writing style, drawings and more importantly the words used in the mark are entirely different from each other. Phonetically and visually both the trade marks are poles apart. Thus, the likelihood of confusion amongst potential customers is absolutely out of the question. Not just a food connoisseur but even the laity would be able to discern the distinction between the two entities, upon a bare perusal of the trade marks. Therefore, this Court unhesitatingly holds that the plaintiff has not infringed and could not infringe the trade mark of the defendants at all. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's trade mark LAMA KITCHEN is distinct and dissimilar to the trade mark Yeti of the defendants. Therefore, issue no 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
TM 78/16 Page. 13 of 16
M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors
ii. Issue no 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant
of a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from making threats of legal proceedings against the plaintiff or its representatives?.
22. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have threatened them with legal consequences for purported infringement of trade mark of defendants. In this regard, the plaintiff placed reliance on legal notice dated 20.06.2016 sent by the defendants as Ex PW1/6. As is apparent from the preceding paragraphs, the allegations of the plaintiff infringing the defendants' mark do not hold water, are baseless and deserve to be trashed. The defendants have no locus, nor any business to breach boundaries and intimidate the plaintiff by making threats of legal proceedings or raising illegal demands qua damages. The defendants need to be reined in on this score and they need to be restrained from threatening the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from making threats of legal proceedings against them. Hence, issue no 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
TM 78/16 Page. 14 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors iii. Issue no 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek damages
from the defendants as claimed in para-d of the prayer clause?
23.The defendants' action therefore exhibit a mala fide intention to perhaps extirpate a competitior, by means which are contrary to the law.
24. For the agony and the threat of public ignominy meted out to the plaintiff, which compelled the plaintiff to seek recourse before the Court of law, the defendants are bound to recompense the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to seek damages from the defendants to the tune of Rs 6,00,000/- as claimed. Therefore, issue no 3 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
VII. RELIEF.
25. Ergo, in view of the above in extenso discussion, the suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff with the following relief:
(a) Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's trade mark LAMA KITCHEN is distinct and dissimilar to the trade mark Yeti of the defendants.
(b) Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from making threats of legal proceedings against them.
(c) Plaintiff is also entitled to seek damages from the defendants to the tune of Rs 6,00,000/- as claimed.
TM 78/16 Page. 15 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
27. No order as to costs.
28. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.Digitally signed
Pronounced in the open Court Arul by Arul Varma Date:
on this 15th November, 2025. Varma 2025.11.15 05:54:47 +0530 (ARUL VARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI TM 78/16 Page. 16 of 16 M/s HKV Hospitality Vs Yeti Group and Ors