Ramada International Inc. Vs. La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.

Posted On - 30 September, 2023 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

In a legal battle that pitted Ramada International Inc. against La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd., the crux of the issue revolved around trademark infringement and the continuous flouting of court injunctions. The petitioner had accused the Defendant, of infringing upon its “RAMADA” trademark, which had been officially registered since 08.10.1991. The petitioner had also raised objections concerning the Defendant’s use of domain names like <www.laramada.com>, <www.laramadaworld.net.in>, and <www.laramadaworld.com>. Furthermore, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s operation of a hotel under the name “La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.” amounted to an infringement of their registered RAMADA trademark.

The legal saga commenced with the court issuing an injunction on 23.09.2021, explicitly restraining the Defendant from employing the Plaintiff’s trademark. The court also mandated an alteration in the Defendant’s company name. Despite being duly informed of the court’s order, the Defendant repeatedly breached the injunction, launching new websites and continuing to employ the infringing marks.

Case Timeline

  • 23.09.2021: The court issues the initial injunction order,
  • 12.10.2021: The domain name laramadaworld.net.in is suspended, a consequence of the Defendant’s non-compliance.
  • 23.11.2021: The other two domain names also face suspension.
  • 22.11.2021: Notably, a day before the suspension of the two domain names, the Defendant registers lrwworld.com, effectively starting a new website that mirrors the previously enjoined laramadaworld.com.
  • 14.12.2021: The court extends the injunction to cover lrwworld.com.
  • 09.02.2022: lrwworld.com faces suspension.
  • 11.02.2022: The Defendant promptly launches new websites, lrworld.co.in and lrw.co.in, with similar infringing content.
  • 15.03.2022: The court issues orders to suspend both lrworld.co.in and lrw.co.in.
  • 08.06.2022: Finally, lrworld.co.in and lrw.co.in are suspended.
  • 09.06.2022: Despite repeated injunctions, the Defendant introduces yet another website, www.lrwworld.co, replicating its previous infringements.
  • 30.05.2022: Frustrated with the Defendant’s non-compliance, the court issues a non-bailable warrant.
  • 26.07.2022: The Defendant appears before the court, pleading for the suspension of the non-bailable warrants. The court grants this request, contingent upon a Rs. 10 lakh deposit to the registrar general of the court within two months. Regrettably, the Defendant fails to comply with this directive.
  • 05.09.2022: An application by the Defendant to stay the deposit order is dismissed by the court, citing the Defendant’s revenue turnover.
  • 10.02.2023: The Defendant’s counsel attempts to attribute their actions to erroneous legal advice, a claim firmly rejected by the court. A hearing on the aspect of sentencing is scheduled for 15.02.2023.
  • 18.09.2023: The case is listed for hearing and disposal, with another opportunity granted to the Defendant to file a reply.

Issues Raised

  1. Trademark Infringement: Whether La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd. infringed upon Ramada International Inc.’s registered “Ramada” trademark.
  2. Defendant’s Disobedience: Whether the Defendant’s wilful and continuous disobedience of its orders, leading to a non-bailable warrant and, eventually, the imposition of a fine was justified?

Appellant’s Arguments

The petitioner in this case, argued that the Defendant had repeatedly violated the court-issued injunction. Their primary contention was that the Defendant’s persistent non-compliance demonstrated a blatant disregard for the legal system and the sanctity of court orders. The petitioner emphasized the importance of protecting trademark rights and ensuring that court injunctions were not treated lightly. They asserted that the Defendant’s actions not only constituted a breach of intellectual property rights but also undermined the authority of the court itself.

Defendant’s Arguments

In response to the petitioner’s allegations, the Defendant sought to attribute their actions to erroneous legal advice. They argued that their repeated violations of the injunction were unintended and stemmed from the misunderstanding of their legal obligations. The Defendant contended that they had relied on professional counsel and had not wilfully disobeyed the court’s orders. They expressed remorse for any inadvertent breaches and emphasized their willingness to cooperate with the court moving forward.

Judgment Ratio

Recognizing the gravity of the Defendant’s continuous and wilful disobedience of the court’s injunction orders, the court decided to take action. In response, the court ordered the Defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with the court registry within four weeks. Failure to meet this financial obligation would result in the Defendant’s incarceration in civil prison for one week. The court stressed that its orders, once issued, must be respected and upheld.


This judgment underscores the court’s commitment to upholding trademark rights and the importance of complying with court-issued injunctions. It paints a clear picture of the Defendant’s continuous disregard for legal orders, leading to a series of punitive actions. The court’s decision to impose a financial penalty and the threat of imprisonment serves as a stern warning against disobedience of court directives. It highlights the principle that court orders must be taken seriously and enforced, and it seeks to deter future infringements and non-compliance.