In a rather quiet courtroom on Wednesday morning, the Delhi High Court delivered a decisive ruling in a dispute over the use of the name “ELANTE,” a mark widely known in the real estate and commercial complexes sector. Justice Tejas Karia, after briefly scanning the empty chairs meant for the respondents, remarked that the absence of a rebuttal itself “speaks loudly” and with that, the matter quickly moved toward conclusion. The court ultimately sided with CSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of three contested trademarks from the official register.
Background
CSJ Infrastructure, operator of the well-known ELANTE commercial complex that includes a mall, office suites, and a hotel, approached the court seeking cancellation of three marks: Elante Residencies, Elante Group, and another Elante Residencies mark with a device element. These marks had been registered by Mr. Akash Kohli between 2019–2020 for services in Class 37 related to construction and real estate.
The petitioner argued that they had adopted the “ELANTE” mark back in 2010 and used it continuously since 2011, long before the respondents allegedly entered the scene in 2019. They claimed that the competing names were “identical in essence,” creating confusion among consumers and unfairly tapping into their brand goodwill.
Efforts at pre-litigation mediation also broke down as the respondents reportedly refused to cease using the contested marks.
Court’s Observations
When the matter was taken up, no one appeared for Respondent No. 1, nor had any reply been filed despite multiple opportunities. The judge noted that the petitioner’s claims therefore stood “uncontroverted” and must be treated as admitted.
The court emphasised a key fact: CSJ Infrastructure was the prior adopter, prior user, and registered proprietor of the ELANTE mark, having used it continuously for nearly 15 years. This long and uninterrupted use, the court said, had made the brand distinctive in the real estate market.
Justice Karia also pointed to the respondents’ own admission-through a previous reply-that their company, Elante Residences Ltd., adopted the impugned marks only in 2019. “The bench observed, ‘Prior user rights override subsequent registration, even if the latter is on the official register.’” He referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Neon Laboratories v. Medical Technologies, reinforcing that earlier use naturally prevails where confusion is likely.
Another point troubled the court: although the respondent company claimed to be using the marks, they were neither the registered proprietor nor a registered user under the Trade Marks Registry. This, the court noted, signalled lack of “bona fide intention” and amounted to non-compliance with statutory provisions governing continuous use.
On the central issue-whether the marks were deceptively similar-the court had little difficulty concluding that “ELANTE” was the dominant and essential element in both sets of marks. Given that both sides operated in overlapping sectors like real estate development and mall/office management, the likelihood of public confusion was “virtually unavoidable.”
Decision
Finding the registrations to be wrongly remaining on the register, and observing clear indicators of mala fide adoption, the court ordered the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove and cancel all three impugned marks-Elante Residencies, Elante Group, and the device mark-bearing numbers 4288558, 4394146, and 4558370. The order concludes by directing immediate communication to the Trade Marks Registry for compliance. And with that, the proceedings wrapped up swiftly, almost as quietly as they had begun.
Case Title: CSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Akash Kohli & Anr.
Case Numbers: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 184/2025, 185/2025, 186/2025
Case Type: Rectification Petitions under Trade Marks Act
Decision Date: 27 November 2025