Select Citywalk v Global Citywalk: Delhi High Court on Trademark Infringement and Deceptive Similarity

Can the mere addition of a prefix rescue a trademark that substantially reproduces the dominant identity of an established brand? More importantly, when a commercial real estate project adopts a mark that already enjoys deep market recognition and consumer association, should courts wait for actual confusion to emerge in the marketplace, or intervene at the threshold itself? These questions formed the heart of the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v. Garg Realtech Private Limited¹, where the Court restrained the defendants from using the mark “GLOBAL CITYWALK” for a commercial real estate project.

The dispute ostensibly concerned the competing marks “SELECT CITYWALK” and “GLOBAL CITYWALK”, but the Court’s analysis extended beyond a mere comparison of names. The decision underscores the importance of safeguarding distinctive trademarks that have acquired substantial goodwill, particularly where the parties operate in closely related commercial fields. It also reflects the evolving approach of Indian trademark law, which places emphasis on the overall impression created by a mark and the perception of an average consumer rather than a purely visual comparison. By granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the Court recognised the need to preserve the distinctiveness and reputation of an established mark pending adjudication. 

The Reputation Behind the “CITYWALK” Mark

The plaintiffs established before the Court that the “CITYWALK” mark had been in continuous use since 2004 and had acquired substantial goodwill and consumer recognition over the years. The Select Citywalk mall, launched in 2007, had evolved into one of Delhi’s most recognized commercial and retail destinations. The plaintiffs also relied upon multiple trademark registrations for “CITYWALK,” “SELECT CITYWALK,” and “CITYWALKER” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Apart from statutory registrations, the plaintiffs highlighted their extensive advertising expenditure, large customer base, and long-standing market presence. The Court observed that “CITYWALK” had become much more than a descriptive expression and had developed into a distinctive commercial identity associated exclusively with the plaintiffs’ business activities in retail, entertainment, hospitality, and commercial real estate. This approach reflects the principle recognized by the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.², where the Court held that the likelihood of confusion must be examined from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Consumers generally remember the dominant impression of a trademark rather than its minute structural details.

Why “GLOBAL CITYWALK” Was Considered Deceptively Similar

The defendants adopted the mark “GLOBAL CITYWALK” for a commercial real estate project and also began promotional activities through online platforms and domain registration. Their primary distinction from the plaintiffs’ mark was the addition of the word “GLOBAL.” However, the Delhi High Court held that this addition was insufficient to remove the likelihood of confusion.

The Court observed that the dominant and memorable component of both marks remained “CITYWALK.” Since the plaintiffs had already established substantial reputation and goodwill in that expression, consumers encountering “GLOBAL CITYWALK” could reasonably assume a connection or association with the plaintiffs. The Court therefore concluded that the defendants had substantially reproduced the essential feature of the plaintiffs’ trademark. The reasoning closely aligns with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co.³, where the addition of the word “India” to the infringing mark was held insufficient to avoid infringement because the essential feature of the registered trademark had been copied. 

Protection of Commercial Goodwill and Consumer Association

An important aspect of the judgment, the Court did not formally declare “CITYWALK” to be a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it acknowledged the substantial reputation and market recognition acquired by the plaintiffs over time.

The Court also considered it relevant that both parties operated within the same commercial field of retail and real estate development. This overlap increased the likelihood that consumers would associate the defendants’ project with the plaintiffs’ established business identity.

The judgment therefore reflects the broader principle recognized in N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation⁴, where the Supreme Court emphasized that commercial reputation and goodwill deserve legal protection against unauthorized association and dilution.

Why the Court Granted an Ex-Parte Interim Injunction

Instead of issuing a final judgment, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured them, and that irreparable injury could occur if the defendants continued using the impugned mark during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court was particularly influenced by the urgency of the matter because the defendants had already started promoting their project online. In commercial real estate disputes, branding and public association play a crucial role, and any continued use of a deceptively similar mark could strengthen consumer confusion and weaken the exclusivity attached to the original trademark. The decision also reflects the principle laid down in Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia⁵, where the Supreme Court observed that injunctions should ordinarily follow once deceptive similarity in trademark disputes is prima facie established.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in the “CITYWALK” dispute highlights the growing judicial emphasis on protecting established commercial identities from indirect appropriation. The judgment makes it clear that simply adding a prefix to a reputed trademark may not shield a party from infringement when the essential feature of the original mark remains unchanged. By granting urgent interim protection, the Court recognized that the real harm in trademark disputes often lies in the gradual erosion of consumer trust and brand distinctiveness even before actual financial damage becomes visible. The decision therefore stands as an important example of how Indian trademark law continues to safeguard reputation-driven commercial assets in increasingly competitive markets.

Citations

1. Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v. Garg Realtech Private Limited, CS(COMM) 493/2026 ↩︎
2. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2001 (5) SCC 73 ↩︎
3. Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., 1970 AIR 1649 ↩︎
4. N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714 ↩︎
5. Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90 ↩︎

Expositor(s): Adv. Aparna Shukla,