The Delhi High Court has stepped into a trademark tussle between Waterways Leisure Tourism Pvt. Ltd. (WLTP), the company behind Cordelia Cruises, and a group of defendants operating under the name Cordelia Inn. The core issue is whether the use of “Cordelia” by both sides in the hospitality industry creates a likelihood of confusion among customers.

WLTP, India’s only premium cruise operator, launched Cordelia Cruises in November 2020 and holds registrations for the mark in Classes 39, 41, and 43, covering transport, entertainment, and hospitality services. They also own the domain www.cordeliacruises.com. According to WLTP, the defendants’ use of the name Cordelia Inn – alongside their domain www.hotelcordeliainn.com amounts to infringement and passing off.

WLTP contended that the defendants had also applied for trademark registration of Cordelia Inn under Class 43 (hotels and restaurants), on a “proposed to be used” basis. During the trademark examination, WLTP’s registration was cited as a conflicting mark. Despite being served a cease-and-desist notice, the defendants continued to use the name, prompting WLTP to file the suit.

WLTP’s Case

1. As the registered proprietor and prior user of Cordelia, WLTP claimed exclusive rights to the mark.
2. They argued that the defendants’ adoption of Cordelia Inn was mala fide, given the overlapping fields of cruises and hotels within the hospitality sector.
3. WLTP emphasized their growing goodwill and reputation, asserting that the similarity in marks and services created a strong likelihood of customer confusion.

Defendants’ Counter

1. The defendants maintained they honestly adopted the name, “Cor” meaning heart in Latin and “Delia” meaning pleasant.
2. They argued WLTP has registration only for the device mark , not the word “Cordelia” standalone, and therefore cannot monopolize it.
3. Since they operate hotels, not cruises, they claimed there was no real overlap or possibility of confusion.
4. They also pointed to the visual differences between WLTP’s maritime-themed logo and their own word-based mark with “Hotel/Inn.”

Court’s findings

After considering the pleadings and arguments the Court held:

1. WLTP was the prior adopter and user of “Cordelia” in the hospitality industry.
2. Both cruises and hotels fall within the same Class 43 hospitality services, and both parties target the same customer base using similar online platforms.
3. The defendants’ reasoning for adopting the name was unconvincing, especially given their awareness of WLTP’s existing trademark.
4. By applying for registration of Cordelia Inn, the defendants effectively acknowledged the distinctiveness of the mark, undermining their argument that “Cordelia” is generic.
5. The addition of “Inn” or “Hotel” to the word Cordelia did not make the mark distinctive, leaving it deceptively similar to Cordelia Cruises.

Finding a prima facie case in WLTP’s favour, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using Cordelia Inn or any deceptively similar variant and directed to remove all online references to the impugned mark until the final disposal of the suit.

Comment

The order reinforces that prior use and registration carry decisive weight in trademark disputes, particularly where parties operate in overlapping sectors. The judgment emphasizes that within allied sectors of the hospitality industry, minor variations or suffixes cannot shield infringing marks when the core element is identical.