Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 01 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd. (Respondent).
  • Underlying Dispute: Trademark infringement and passing‑off claim under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 concerning the mark “MILLENNIUM” and its logo. The First Party filed CS (Comm) No. 865/2016 in the Delhi High Court; the Second Party contested jurisdiction and filed SLP (C) No. 18292/2018 in the Supreme Court, which stayed the proceedings on 13 July 2018.
  • Mediation: On 22 April 2026, the Supreme Court directed former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna to mediate. Mediation sessions were held on 30 April, 11 May, 13 May, 26 May and 08 July 2026 via videoconference.
  • Settlement Agreement: Executed on 22 September 2026, the agreement contains the following key terms:

1. The Second Party acknowledges the First Party’s exclusive rights to the “MILLENNIUM” trademark and logo in Classes 35 and 43 worldwide and will not challenge them.

2. The Second Party may continue using the corporate name “Hotel Millennium Continental Private Limited” and the domain millenniumcontinental.com.

3. The Second Party may operate its existing hotel on Narakathara Road, Cochin, under the name “Hotel Millennium Continental” with the logo.

4. The Second Party may use the name “Hotel Cochin Millennium Continental” for a new hotel on Seaport Airport Road, Kochi, also with the logo (collectively “Specified Hotels”).

5. Use of the marks “HOTEL MILLENNIUM CONTINENTAL” and “HOTEL COCHIN MILLENNIUM CONTINENTAL” is permitted on marketing, booking platforms, stationery, towels, cutlery, and promotional material only for the Specified Hotels.

6. Within 15 days of the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the settlement, the Second Party must display a disclaimer – “A unit of Hotel Millennium Continental Private Limited. This hotel is not affiliated, associated and/or connected whatsoever with Millennium Hotels and Resorts and/or Millennium & Copthorne International Limited …” – on its website and at the hotel lobby, reception and restaurant on a 24" × 30" placard in Times New Roman or Arial, minimum 28 pt font, at its own cost.

7. Any alteration to the trade names, marks or logo for the Specified Hotels requires prior written consent of the First Party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

8. Apart from the allowances in clauses 3‑6, the Second Party shall not use the word “MILLENNIUM” for any other hospitality establishment, nor register any new domain containing “MILLENNIUM”, except it may use the tagline “A unit of Hotel Millennium Continental Private Limited” and the logo.

9. If the Second Party acquires or operates any other hotel/resort, it must not adopt, register or exploit any mark containing “MILLENNIUM” or a confusingly similar mark, though the aforementioned tagline and logo may be used.

10. The Second Party must, within 30 days of the Supreme Court’s acceptance, either amend or withdraw its pending trademark application No. 2682216 (for “MILLENNIUM CONTINENTAL” in Class 39) and file a new application for “millennium continental Tours” in Class 39; the First Party will withdraw its opposition (TMO No. 945242) within the same period.

11. The Second Party will withdraw its trademark application No. 2356708 (for “HOTEL MILLENNOM CONTINENTAL” in Class 43).

12. The agreement does not restrict the Second Party’s jewellery, supermarket or other businesses from using the name “Millennium” and its logo.

13. Both parties will jointly pray under Article 142 of the Constitution for the Supreme Court to incorporate the settlement into its order, rendering CS (Comm) No. 865/2016 decreed and disposed.

14. Breach of any settlement term will attract Supreme Court enforcement, including contempt proceedings, injunctions, damages and recovery of legal costs.

15. No costs, damages or compensation are payable by either party for the litigation.

16. The settlement is executed digitally by the First Party in Singapore and physically by the Second Party in Kerala, effective on the later of the two execution dates.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal (Civil Appeal No. 13582 of 2026) and the pending applications, confirming that the parties remain bound by the Settlement Agreement dated 22 September 2026.
  • CS (Comm) No. 865/2016 before the Delhi High Court is treated as decreed and disposed of in accordance with the settlement.
  • The Registry is directed to draw a decree reflecting the settlement terms.

Topics: Trademark Settlement, Hospitality Industry