In this case, the plaintiff (“ITC”) claims having diverse business in products and services such as hotels, paperboards, specialty paper, packing, agro-business, Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), including cigarettes; foods, confectionery, Information Technology, branded-apparel, personal care, etc. The suit describes 14 hotels under the ITC “WECOMEGROUP” banner in various locales and cities in India, including ITC Maurya in New Delhi. ITC claims that its “WELCOME GROUP” mark/logo has been in continuous and extensive use on its products and packaging of its famous “Kitchens of India” ranges of ready-to-eat food products. ITC also mentions that it owns trademarks registrations in several classes un as many as 14 other countries.

It states that the defendants “Philip Morris” have introduced in cigarette in India by the name Marlboro ITC alleges that since their launch in India, the defendants have used only its traditional “Marlboro” cigarette where it is alleged Philip Morris use a part of logos that is identical on similar to ITC namaste welcome Group mark/logo. The plaintiff alleges that the use of the impugned logo (which is a style “M” title towards the right, as if it is in flames, in yellow colour or dark packaging) (” the flaming logo”) would injure by association with the plaintiff’s distinctive trademark and copyright in the artistic work vis-s-vis the “welcome” Group logo (“the W-NAMASTE logo”).

The plaintiff urges that the W-NAMASTE logo in permanent and initial features of all its products and services. One of its main business is tobacco and cigarette and the use of identical or similar mark connect or the Marlboro’s flaming logo iTC product as a constitute both infringement and passing off. It is asserted that the unimpeded use of Marlboro’s flaming logo result in Blurring and dilution the distinctive character of the plaintiff’s W-NAMASTE mark which has been used for the last 34 years continuously. It is also contended that flaming logo  Philip Morris for its of “Marlboro” cigarette our contrary two honest practices and deliberated departure from the use of its traditional “Marlboro” logo which amounts to the defendants. Taking unfair advantage, without causes of the plaintiffs mark and logo.

The plaintiff submitted that Philip Morris’s attempt amounts to infringement with in the meaning of the expression under session 29(4) of The trademark act 1999. It is also contended that the ITC’s “WELCOME GROUP” W-NAMASTE has become a famous market in the meaning of the term under the act so as to enable it(ITC) 2c injections for its protection against m associate that pain mark with its goods and services whether those goods and services concern the Welcome Group hotel services or not. ITC relies up on the decision in ramdev food production Private Limited.v Arvind bhai Ram Bhai Patel 2006(33) PTC 281, in support of the arguments that even though Philip Morris may not be ussing the plaintiff’s W_NAMASTE trademark, it’s getup is so like ITC’s as to amount to passing off and infringement.