Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement and passing off suit filed by Ocean Pearl Hotels Private Limited against Prestige Estates Projects Limited concerning the use of the marks “PRESTIGE OCEAN PEARL” and “OCEAN PEARL” in relation to a luxury residential and resort-style real estate project, a Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that the impugned mark “PRESTIGE OCEAN PEARL” prima facie subsumed the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “Ocean Pearl”, with the expression “Ocean Pearl” being used as the dominant and distinctive element of the defendant’s branding and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks and directed removal of all websites, domain names and promotional material bearing the said marks. Subsequently, upon the defendant filing an application seeking vacation of the injunction, the Court referred the parties to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for an amicable resolution of the dispute.
Also Read: MakeMyTrip Trademark infringement case | SCC Times
The plaintiff, a well-known hospitality enterprise operating under the trade mark “Ocean Pearl” since 2010, instituted a suit seeking ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The plaintiff claimed ownership of several registered “Ocean Pearl” trade marks and asserted extensive use of the mark in relation to hotels, resorts, restaurants, and allied hospitality services across multiple locations, including Mangaluru, Udupi, Dharwad, Ujire, and New Delhi. It was contended that the mark had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation through long-standing use, significant turnover, promotional expenditure, and extensive online presence through its website.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had adopted and applied for registration of the marks “Prestige Ocean Pearl”/“Ocean Pearl”/ 
in Classes 36 and 37 for a luxury residential and resort-style real estate project in Kozhikode, Kerala, claiming use since October 2022. According to the plaintiff, the impugned marks wholly incorporated its registered trade mark “Ocean Pearl” and were likely to cause confusion regarding source, affiliation, sponsorship, or association between the parties. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had adopted domain names containing the expression “Ocean Pearl” with a mala fide intention to exploit the goodwill attached to the plaintiff’s mark.
Stating that the defendant’s activities amounted to trade mark infringement and passing off, and apprehending expansion of the defendant’s business beyond Kerala, including into Delhi, the plaintiff instituted the present qua timet action. It was also submitted that despite issuance of a cease-and-desist notice, the defendant failed to respond, necessitating the filing of the suit and the prayer for an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining use of the impugned marks.
The Court, upon a visual comparison of the rival marks, observed that although the defendant had applied for registration of “PRESTIGE OCEAN PEARL” as both a device mark and a word mark, the material placed on record indicated that the expression “Ocean Pearl” was being used separately and prominently in capital letters and bold font across various advertisements, websites and social media content. The Court noted that the mark “PRESTIGE OCEAN PEARL”/ 
clearly subsumed the plaintiff’s mark “Ocean Pearl”, and that the prefix “Prestige” appeared to function merely as a house mark, while “Ocean Pearl” was projected as a distinct and dominant identifier.
The Court further observed that the plaintiff had garnered substantial goodwill and reputation through longstanding use of the mark, as reflected from its sales turnover, promotional expenditure, extensive online and offline presence, and operations across multiple properties throughout the country. The plaintiff was also found to be active not only in hospitality services but in construction and real estate development. In contrast, the defendant appeared to be a recent entrant, having applied for registration of the impugned marks only in July 2024 with a claimed user date of 1 October 2022.
Considering the material on record, the Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie strong case in its favour. The balance of convenience was found to be tilted in favour of the plaintiff and the Court observed that irreparable loss and injury, incapable of adequate monetary compensation, would be caused if interim protection was denied. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from using the impugned marks “PRESTIGE OCEAN PEARL”, “OCEAN PEARL”, or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade marks in relation to any goods or services. The Court also directed the defendant to suspend, take down and remove all websites, domain names, social media pages, advertisements, promotional materials and online content bearing the impugned marks, including the identified domain names associated with the project. Notice was issued in the application and the suit was directed to be registered, with timelines fixed for filing of pleadings and completion of service.
Subsequent to the grant of the ex parte ad interim injunction, the defendant moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking vacation and/or suspension of the injunction order dated 20 May 2026. The Court further directed that the defendant’s application for vacation of injunction and the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction be considered together on the next date of hearing.
Observing that the nature of the dispute was such that the inter se differences between the parties could be amicably resolved, the Court referred the parties to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 1 June 2026, and the Organising Secretary was requested to nominate a senior mediator conversant with the subject-matter of the dispute. The mediator was further requested to endeavour to conclude the mediation proceedings by 30 June 2026.
Also Read: Delhi HC Restrains Unauthorized Use of “The Pioneer” in Trademark Dispute |SCC Times
[Ocean Pearl Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Prestige Estates Projects Ltd., CS(COMM) 531 of 2026, ordered on 29-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mukul Kochhar, Tarun Gaur, Aman Vasisth, Anand Kumar, Naimish Tewari and Ritvik Jha, Purnima Vashishtha, Advocates (ADP Law Offices)
For the Defendant: Jayant Mehta, Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, Himanshu Deora, Harshit Raj, Deepak Dhyani, Sanat Saswadhakar, Shambhavi Bhardwaj and Divya Bhushan, Advocates (King Stubb and Kasiva)
