While well-known marks and trans border reputation are concepts well ingrained in the Indian trademark law, however the Rajasthan District Court in its decision rendered on June 18, 2010 seems to have taken a slightly different view. Dealing in Hotel Hilltone, Mount Abu v. Hilton International Corp barred the international hospitality group Hilton International Corporation of the Hilton Hotels fame (Hilton has a joint venture in India with DLF) to carry on business in India holding that it was deceptively similar to Sirohi-based Hilltone Hotel. It further restrained the international hospitality group from using any kind of "misleading logo and mark" which has potential to cause confusion among the general public and directed it not to carry on the business of hotel and food items under "such duplicate trademark".

Hotel Hilltone, Mount Abu contended that it is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and Hilton International should be restrained from carrying out business in India by using a "deceptively similar trademark as that of the plaintiff.

However Hilton International Corp averred that Hotel Hilltone; Mount Abu had adopted its name and trademark for the purposes of deriving benefits of fame and reputation. At this the district judge stated that;

The District Court after hearing both the sides held that, Hilton International Corp in any state of India, may not use the registered trademark of Hotel Hilltone Mount Abu or any kind of sabotage in it by using any kind of misleading logo and mark. The Court also stated that they may not use and enjoy by causing confusion of being Hotel Hilltone Mount Abu and in collaboration with any other Indian establishment may not carry on business of hotels and food items under such duplicate trade mark. Hilton International Corporation and Hilton International were restrained by an order of permanent injunction, so that no similar names are used nor is any obstruction caused in the manufacturing and sale of the food items to be manufactured by Hiltone.

The Court further held that use of such misleading logo and mark had the potential to cause confusion among general public and also rejected the contention of Hilton International that the domestic firm has adopted its name and trademark for deriving benefits of its fame and reputation.