Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited
Respondent / Defendant
Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Dispute Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. for using a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark 'CITYWALK' is a unique mark adopted by them in 2004 and has become an industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for exemption from filing original documents and advance service to the defendants.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 5 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi High Court - Orders Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited ... vs Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 4 May, 2026 Author: Tushar Rao Gedela Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela $~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 468/2026 SELECT CITYWALK RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Kapil Midha, Ms. Sindhoora Ravindran, Ms. Yadavi Malhotra, Ms. Vartika and Mr. Garv Singh, Advocates. versus GOLD COAST DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA ORDER % 04.05.2026 I.A. 12372/2026(Exemption) 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ' CPC '), 1908 seeking exemption from filing original/dim/copies of documents along with the captioned suit. 2. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, original/dim/copies of the documents with proper margins be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendants. 3. The application stands disposed of. I.A. 12373/2026(Pre-Institution Mediation) 4. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as ' CC Act '), 2015. CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 1 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi : (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted. 6. The application stands disposed of. I.A. 12374/2026(Exemption from Advance Notice to Defendants) 7. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking exemption from advance service to the defendants. 8. Mr. Kapil Midha, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that there is a real and imminent likelihood that the defendants may take immediate steps to dispose of, conceal or suppress its infringing business operations bearing the deceptively similar trademark. 9. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has sought an urgent ex-parte ad- interim relief, the exemption from advance service to the defendants is granted. 10. The application is disposed of. I.A. 12371/2026(Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC ) 11. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC , 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants. 12. Plaintiffs claim that plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 till May, 2023, were a part of the "SELECT GROUP", which was formed in 1979 and has successfully ventured into several diverse business verticals including travel, tourism, hospitality, retail private equity and organic farming. Plaintiffs further claim that are engaged in diversified business areas into the business of development of commercial space, organizing events and exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes, advertising, food courts, organizing of activities for entertainment and cultural purposes, real estate, travel & tourism CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 2 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 Industry. 13. Plaintiff claims that the trademark "CITYWALK" is a unique mark, adopted by M/s Select Infrastructure Limited in the year 2004. The plaintiff no.2 had developed a commercial project under the trademark "CITYWALK/SELECT CITYWALK" in October, 2007, which has become an ICON and industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. 14. Plaintiff claims that vide an Assignment deed dated 15.07.2022, plaintiff No.1 has acquired all rights, title, and interests in the said Trademark "CITYWALK" and all its different forms and variants, including the goodwill of the business in which the said trademark was used, and the plaintiff no.l has become the owner of the said trademark "CITYWALK". 15. Plaintiff claims that it has various registration for the trademarks "CITYWALK/SELECT CITYWALK", and "CITYWALKER", as enumerated in para 25 of the plaint and few of them are extracted hereunder:- S.No. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. CLASS STATUS 1 1296536 37 Registered 2 1445911 37 Registered 3 CITY WALKER 2149390 37 Registered 4 SELECT 2149396 37 Registered CITYWALKER 5 2865367 36 Registered CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 3 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 6 1746893 35 Registered 7 PERSONAL 2149400 35 Registered SHOPPING @ SELECT CITYWALK 16. Plaintiffs claim that they have also obtained the registration of their domain name www.selectcitywalk.com in the year 2004, which is a fully operational website and provides extensive information about the plaintiff's business under the same mark. 17. Plaintiff claims that a representation of the use of "SELECT CITYWALK/CITYWALK" since 2004 until September, 2023 used by the plaintiffs, with extra emphasis on "CITYWALK" is detailed in para 28 of the plaint, which is extracted hereunder:- Plaintiff further claims that after September, 2023, it commenced the use of the following logo, besides using "SELECT CITYWALK/CITYWALK" as detailed in para 28 of the plaint and the same is extracted hereunder:- 18. Plaintiff claims that they are also publishing a magazine/newsletter CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 4 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 under the name "CITYWALKER" since 2009 to promote the said trademarks. Approximately, around 1.75 lakh copies of the said magazine (monthly issues) are published. The plaintiffs also circulate the magazines to its customers across India. Sample cover page of the "CITYWALKER" magazine as enumerated in para 29 of the plaint are as reproduced hereunder:- 19. Plaintiffs claim that the said shopping mall cum commercial complex under the trademark "CITYWALK/ SELECT CITYWALK/ ", is spread over 6 acres in the heart of posh South Delhi, Saket and comprises a gorgeous shopping podium, serviced Apartments, a 6-screen, upscale PVR Premiere, destination restaurants, cafes, bistros, and bars, with parking for approximately 1150 cars and is also one of the largest shopping centres in India with over 175 brands outlets under one roof. 20. Plaintiff claims that the shopping mall cum commercial complex has a wide array of elite customers/brands under the brand/name/ style "CITYWALK/ SELECT CITYWALK/ ", some of which include H&M, KAMA, Balenzia, US Polo Association, Louise Philippe, Colorbar and food brands include Masala trail, subway, taco bell etc. 21. The plaintiffs claim to have spent substantial amounts on advertisement CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 5 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 and promotion which has been detailed in para 41. In the year 2007-08 the expenses were approximately Rs.2,87,22,061/- while in the year 2024-25 it reached Rs.7,87,33,508/-. 22. Plaintiffs claim to have scaled great heights on account of providing impeccable services under the registered trademark "CITYWALK/ SELECT CITYWALK/ " in its field and claims to have enormous recognition and innumerable awards as enumerated in para 43 of the plaint. 23. Plaintiffs claim to have acquired tremendous reputation and enviable goodwill and have attained the status of well-known trademark within the meaning under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 24. Plaintiffs claim to have came across a trademark application filed by the defendant for the trademark "GOLDCOAST CITYWALK" in class 37 on 09.08.2021 vide the application bearing no.5080187 on a "proposed to be used basis". In the said application, an examination report dated 20.08.2021 has been issued and the plaintiffs filed opposition bearing no.1140220 dated 28.12.2021 against defendant no.2 and the said opposition proceedings are still pending. 25. Plaintiffs claim that that they came across the advertisement/brochure of the defendants wherein they have used the mark "GOLDCOAST CITYWALK/ / /CITYWALK", the plaintiff no.1 issued a legal notice dated 20.02.2026 seeking the defendants to refrain from the said trademark. However, the defendants have, till date, failed to respond to the said legal notice. The screenshot of the brochure as enumerated in para 65 is extracted hereunder:- CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 6 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 26. Plaintiffs further claim that the defendants to gain visibility, have consistently used the hashtag "#CITYWALK" in each of their posts on Instagram. The screenshots of the use of the mark "CITYWALK" on the defendant's social media as enumerated in para 66 are extracted hereunder: CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 7 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 27. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants launching its project under the CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 8 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 trademark "GOLDCOAST CITYWALK/ / /CITYWALK" and it's likely to be completed by 23.07.2026. 28. Predicated on the above, the plaintiffs seek an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. 29. Heard Mr. Kapil Midha, learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the documents and pleadings on record. 30. The comparison table of the plaintiff's mark and the defendant's mark enumerated in the plaintiff is extracted hereunder: 31. A comparison of the competing marks leaves no manner of doubt as to the deceptive similarity between the two. The plaintiffs' mark CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 9 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 "CITYWALK/SELECT CITYWALK" is a coined and distinctive mark, which has been in use since 2004 and has come to be exclusively associated with the plaintiffs' commercial real estate and retail business in the minds of the public. The defendants' mark "GOLDCOAST CITYWALK" wholly incorporates the plaintiffs' registered trademark "CITYWALK" as its essential and dominant feature, with the only addition being the house mark "GOLDCOAST" as a prefix. The visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity between the two marks is apparent, and a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, upon encountering the defendants' mark "GOLDCOAST CITYWALK", is likely to be misled into believing that the defendants' project is associated with, affiliated to, or endorsed by the plaintiffs. 32. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court is of the prima facie view that the plaintiffs have established a strong case in their favour. The trademark "CITYWALK/SELECT CITYWALK" has been in continuous and extensive use since 2004, is the subject of multiple registered trademarks across several classes, and has acquired tremendous goodwill, reputation. The defendants' use of the deceptively similar mark "GOLDCOAST CITYWALK/CITYWALK" in relation to a real estate project, which is stated to be nearing completion by July, 2026, is likely to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the public and is prima facie an act of infringement and passing off. It is further relevant to note that the defendants are engaged in the same field of business, namely development of commercial real estate and related activities. The balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the plaintiffs stand to suffer irreparable loss, injury and prejudice to their reputation and goodwill built over two decades, which cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms, if the injunction prayed for is not granted at this stage. CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 10 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 33. Accordingly, the following directions are passed: a. Defendants, directors/promoters as the case may be its servants, agents, franchisees or any one acting for and on its behalf in any manner are restrained from using the mark/name "GOLDCOAST CITYWALK/ / /CITYWALK" or any other mark either as a trade mark, service mark, trading style, trade name, logo, key word, meta tag, hashtag, domain name, or in any other manner, identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' mark "CITYWALK/SELECT CITYWALK/ in relation to any goods or services in printed and/or in any other media, electronic online version or digital form or in any other form whatsoever. 34. Issue notice. 35. Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendants within four weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 36. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within ten days from date. CS(COMM) 468/2026 37. Let the plaint be registered as a suit. 38. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendants through all permissible modes. 39. The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith the Written Statement, the defendants shall also file Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiffs, without which the CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 11 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01 Written Statement shall not be taken on record. 40. Liberty is granted to the plaintiffs to file Replication, if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication filed by the plaintiffs, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of defendant be filed by the plaintiffs, without which the Replication shall not be taken on record. 41. In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings. 42. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines. 43. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 05.08.2026 for completion of service and pleadings. 44. List before the Court on 14.10.2026. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MAY 4, 2026 Kct/rl CS(COMM) 468/2026 Page 12 of 12 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:01
Cancel
Update Case