{"id":27932,"date":"2026-07-22T05:02:22","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T05:02:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=27932"},"modified":"2026-07-22T05:08:21","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T05:08:21","slug":"renaissance-hotel-holdings-v-b-vijaya-sai-trademark-infringement-supreme-court-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/renaissance-hotel-holdings-v-b-vijaya-sai-trademark-infringement-supreme-court-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai (2022): Supreme Court Clarifies Trademark Infringement Under Sections 29 & 30 of the Trade Marks Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/span>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others: Supreme Court Clarifies Trademark Infringement Under Sections 29 & 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

In the world of intellectual property law, one of the most frequently misunderstood questions is this: if a person uses only a part of someone else’s registered trademark, combined with their own word or prefix, does that amount to an infringement? Many people assume that by adding a word before or after a famous trademark, they can escape legal liability. The Supreme Court of India emphatically put this misunderstanding to rest in its landmark judgement in Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others<\/strong>, decided on 19th January, 2022. This judgement is a significant milestone in Indian trademark law because it clarifies, in considerable depth, the difference between an action for infringement of a registered trademark and an action for passing off, explains the correct scope of Sections 29 and 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and establishes that when a defendant’s mark is identical or similar to a registered trademark and is used for identical or similar goods or services, the court is bound by law to presume that confusion exists, and no further evidence of confusion or deception need be produced by the plaintiff. The judgement also sends a strong message that religious sentiment or honest personal reasons behind the adoption of an infringing mark are not a legal defence to an action for trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n