Delhi High Court Orders Interim Relief for Select Citywalk, Bars Real Estate Firm from Using ‘Vardhman Citywalk’ Mark
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Vardhman Amrante Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “Vardhman Citywalk” for its real-estate and entertainment projects. The Court recorded that Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd. has used the “Citywalk” mark since 2004 for commercial spaces, themed landscapes, outdoor zones, and related entertainment activities, and has established goodwill and reputation in it. Finding the marks, services, and consumer base to be identical, the Court held the defendant’s adoption prima facie dishonest and ordered cessation of all infringing promotion, advertising, and commercial use.
The dispute arose between Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited and its affiliate as plaintiffs and Vardhman Amrante Private Limited as defendant. The plaintiffs, engaged in commercial space development and allied services, claimed ownership of the trademark “Citywalk” and its variants. They stated that the mark was first adopted in 2004 and has since been continuously used for commercial complexes, themed landscapes, outdoor zones, and entertainment activities. They asserted that the mark has acquired reputation and goodwill, supported by extensive trademark registrations across multiple classes and by evidence of long-standing promotional expenditure.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had adopted and begun promoting the mark “Vardhman Citywalk” for its proposed real-estate development projects including commercial spaces and entertainment zones. They contended that the defendant’s use of the impugned mark was intended to ride upon the reputation of the plaintiffs’ mark and would cause confusion among consumers. The plaintiffs highlighted that the defendant had applied for registration of its marks in 2024 on a “proposed to be used” basis, that the projects had not commenced, and that banners and social-media promotions were nonetheless circulated.
The plaintiffs relied on their earliest trademark registration dating back to 2004, details of numerous subsequent registrations, and records of annual advertising and promotion expenses to show continuous and extensive use. They invoked provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for infringement and passing off, as well as Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for exemption from advance service of summons, and sought relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an interim injunction.
The defendant, in its reply to a prior legal notice, denied any intention to infringe, described the impugned mark as a coined term drawn from its corporate name, and asserted that no commercial project under that mark had commenced.
Justice Tejas Karia recorded that “the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the Plaintiffs’ Marks with the earliest registration for the Mark ‘CITYWALK’ in 2004.” The Court further recorded that “the Plaintiffs have been using the Mark ‘CITYWALK’ continuously since 2004 with respect to commercial spaces, themed landscapes & outdoor zones, and other entertainment activities therein etc.”
The Court observed that “the Plaintiffs have demonstrated the goodwill and reputation acquired by the Plaintiffs’ Marks.” It noted that the plaintiffs had “spent a considerable amount on advertising and business promotion and recorded an expenditure of ₹7,87,33,508/- for advertising and business promotion in the Financial Year 2024-25.”
It further recorded that “the Defendant’s use of the Impugned Marks is prima facie dishonest and nothing but an attempt to ride the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs’ Marks so as to cause confusion in the market.”
Justice Karia observed that “this is a case of triple identity where the Marks are identical, the product category is identical and also the consumer base is identical.” The Court also recorded that “the Plaintiffs being the prior user, adopter of the Mark ‘CITYWALK’ are entitled to protection.”
The Court stated that “the identity in the Impugned Marks is so close to the Plaintiffs’ Marks that the two are indistinguishable.” It concluded that “the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiffs if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.”
The Court directed that, “till the next date of hearing, the Defendant, its partners, directors, assignees in business, its associates, affiliates, franchisees, licensees, distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers and agents are restrained from using, advertising through print media or through any other form of media including social media, putting up signboards, directly or indirectly dealing in real estate development which includes commercial spaces, themed landscapes & outdoor zones, and other entertainment, under the Impugned Marks, ‘VARDHAMAN CITYWALK’ and [device mark], or any other Trade Mark that may be phonetically, visually, structurally and deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks, ‘CITYWALK’, ‘SELECT CITYWALK’… in any manner so as to cause infringement or passing off of the Plaintiffs’ Marks.”
The Court further ordered that the defendant file its reply to the injunction application within four weeks after service of notice, with rejoinder to be filed by the plaintiffs before the next hearing. It also directed that compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be completed within two weeks.
The matter was ordered to be listed before the Court on 21 January 2026 for further proceedings, with interim relief in force until that date.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Midha, Ms. Annanya Mehan, Ms. Muskaan Garg and Mr. Garv Singh, Advocates.
Case Title: Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited & Anr. v. Vardhman Amrante Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 995/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
