Case Law

Renaissance Hotel v. B. Vijaya Sai — Trademark Infringement Case

Ahmedabad, Gujarat

Citation & Court

Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others, Supreme Court of India, decided 19 January 2022. Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2022.

Need help with this?

Facing an examination report, a show-cause hearing or an opposition? See our trademark objection reply and opposition service. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.

The Issue

The registered proprietor of RENAISSANCE challenged use of SAI RENAISSANCE for hotels. The dispute concerned which infringement test applied.

The Rule in Simple Language

Where the competing marks and goods or services are identical, Section 29(2)(c), read with Section 29(3), requires the court to presume likely confusion. Section 29(4) concerns dissimilar goods or services and has additional requirements, including reputation in India.

On the findings in this case, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's injunction. It also explained that the honest-use defence under Section 30(1) requires both statutory conditions.

How This Helps

Identify the precise infringement provision before selecting evidence. Compare the registered specification with the actual goods or services used by the other party. Keep certificates, advertisements and dated evidence of the disputed use together.

Important Limit

The courts had found the marks identical on these facts. This does not mean that any shared word or matching class number automatically establishes infringement. It is an infringement decision, not a ruling that every Section 11 objection must succeed.

Original Judgment & Relevant Paragraphs

Read the original Supreme Court judgment. Paragraphs 48–52 explain the infringement tests; 55–56 discuss trade-name and spoken or visual use; 58–59 explain Section 30(1). Reviewed 8 October 2026.

For the registration-stage process, see our Section 11 objection reply guide. Browse the case-law library by issue.

Facing this exact situation in your own filing?

Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.

WhatsApp Us
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

In Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2022, decided 19 January 2022), the Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's injunction against use of "SAI RENAISSANCE" for hotels. With the marks found identical and used for identical services, Section 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) required the court to presume likely confusion.

It shows why the exact infringement provision must be identified before evidence is chosen. Where the marks and goods or services are identical, Section 29(3) presumes confusion, while Section 29(4), which covers dissimilar goods or services, has extra requirements including reputation in India. Compare the registered specification with what the other party offers, and keep certificates, advertisements and dated records of the disputed use together.

The result depended on the courts' finding that the marks were identical, so a shared word or matching class number does not automatically prove infringement. It is an infringement decision, not a ruling that every Section 11 objection must succeed. For defendants, it confirms that the Section 30(1) defence needs both conditions: use in line with honest commercial practices, and no unfair advantage or detriment to the registered mark.

Last Note

If your brand could only get one thing right, make it the trademark.

That is what we help you decide. Then we search it, file it, defend it, and keep it renewed for the next ten years — from Ahmedabad, for all of Gujarat.

Call Now WhatsApp