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