Delhi High Court: In an application filed by ITC Ltd. under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the ‘BUKHARA’ trade mark, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from misusing the ‘BUKHARA’ trade mark.
Background
Plaintiff 1, ITC, is a century-old diversified conglomerate engaged in businesses including FMCG, agri-products, hotels, paperboards, packaging, and education, with significant market capitalization and global recognition. Plaintiff 2 is an associate company of ITC which owns and operates hotels and restaurants under ITC’s renowned trade marks ‘BUKHARA’ and ‘ITC HOTELS’.
The plaintiffs are prominent players in the Indian hospitality industry, operating over 140 luxury and premium hotels across multiple segments and enjoying substantial goodwill and reputation in their field. The plaintiffs had launched their iconic ‘BUKHARA’ fine dine restaurant at ITC Maurya, New Delhi in the late 1970s offering North-West Frontier cuisine crafted under the expertise of Chef Madan Lal Jaiswal. Over four decades, ‘BUKHARA’ has become a global culinary landmark and has acquired the status of a well-known trade mark.
The defendant is operating in Delhi under the names ‘BUKHARA INN’, ‘HOTEL BUKHARA’, ‘HOTEL BUKHARA INN’ (‘impugned marks’) and is listed on several travel platforms such as TripAdvisor, Yatra, Agoda and Google.
In response to a cease-and-desist notice sent by the plaintiffs, the defendant had stated that even though their usage of the ‘BUKHARA’ mark was subsequent to the plaintiff’s, it was limited to an 11-room guest house and therefore refused to comply with the plaintiff’s notice.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the mark ‘BUKHARA’ enjoys significant protection as a registered well-known trade mark. The defendant on the other hand is running a hotel/inn using the impugned marks. The Court also noted that the defendant had outrightly refused to stop using the mark ‘BUKHARA’ claiming that the defendant’s family name was BUKHARI. The court found no merit in this contention and stated that the defendant’s use of the impugned marks was unjustified.
The Court observed that prima facie it appeared that the defendant’s adoption of the ‘BUKHARA’ trade mark was with full-knowledge of its prior, well-known status and is not a bona fide descriptive use.
Thus, the Court opined that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in their favour. The Court further opined that irreparable injury would be cause to the plaintiffs if an ad interim injunction was not granted.
Therefore, the Court restrained the defendants and its agents, representatives and all persons acting under them from infringing the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘BUKHARA’, 
or any deceptively similar mark.
The matter was further listed for 14-4-2026.
[ITC Ltd. v. Bukhara Inn, C.S.(COMM) No. 1187 of 2025, decided on 7-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Arvind K. Nigam, Senior Advocate, Gopal Jain, Shyel Trehan, Tanmay Mehta, Suhrita Majumdar, Debjyoti Sarkar, Afzal B. Khan, Sharad Besoya, Agnish Aditya, Vidhi Jain, Rohan Poddar, Advocates