Delhi Court Decrees Trademark Suit in Favour of 'Carnatic Café' After Defendant's Defence Struck Off

New Delhi: A Commercial Court in Delhi has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the popular South Indian restaurant chain 'Carnatic Café', restraining a Bengaluru-based entity from using the deceptively similar mark 'CARNATIC'. The judgment was pronounced under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code after the defendant failed to file a written statement in time and their defence was struck from the record.

District Judge (Commercial) Ms. Neelam Singh decreed the suit filed by Mr. Pavan Jambagi, proprietor of Carnatic Café, against Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., permanently barring the latter from using the impugned mark and directing them to pay damages and costs.

Background of the Dispute

The plaintiff, Mr. Pavan Jambagi, established 'Carnatic Café' in 2012, building a significant reputation and goodwill in the Delhi-NCR region for its authentic South Indian cuisine. The plaintiff holds several registered trademarks for the 'Carnatic Café' name and logo in Class 43, covering restaurant and catering services.

The dispute arose in December 2018 when the plaintiff discovered that Lemonpepper Hospitality was operating a restaurant in Bengaluru under the name 'CARNATIC'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's adoption of an identical mark for identical services was a deliberate attempt to exploit the goodwill associated with the 'Carnatic Café' brand.

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff contended that the defendant's use of the mark 'CARNATIC' amounted to: - Trademark Infringement: A direct violation of its statutory rights under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 , given the deceptive similarity of the marks and identity of services. - Passing Off: Misrepresenting their services as those of the plaintiff, thereby causing confusion among consumers and unlawfully capitalizing on established goodwill. - Unfair Competition: Diluting the distinctiveness of the 'Carnatic Café' brand and causing irreparable harm to its reputation, particularly through negative online reviews for the defendant's establishment being wrongly associated with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff presented evidence of its trademark registrations, extensive use of the mark, and the defendant's use of 'CARNATIC' on physical signage and online platforms like Zomato and their domain www.carnaticrestaurant.com.

Defendant's Procedural Missteps and Admission

The case took a decisive turn due to the defendant's procedural conduct. After the plaintiff filed the suit in April 2019, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.

Crucially, the defendant failed to file their Written Statement within the statutory period. Their subsequent application to condone the delay was dismissed by the court in March 2020, and their defence was officially struck off. This left the plaintiff's factual claims entirely uncontroverted on record.

Further strengthening the plaintiff's position, the defendant's counsel made a statement in court on November 3, 2022, confirming compliance with the injunction order. This was supported by a sworn affidavit from the defendant's Managing Director, who undertook not to use the name 'CARNATIC' in the future.

Court's Rationale for the Decree

The court invoked Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers a court to pronounce judgment if a defendant fails to file a written defence. Judge Neelam Singh observed that the provision is intended to prevent delays where a defendant chooses not to contest a claim.

The court noted: > "The defence having been struck off and the factual foundation remaining unchallenged, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has made out a clear case for pronouncement of judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. The Defendants admission of compliance and undertaking... does not obviate the necessity of a final decree that formally crystallises the Plaintiff’s rights..."

The court concluded that the plaintiff had successfully established its statutory rights as a registered proprietor, its prior and continuous use of the mark, and the defendant's unauthorized use. The absence of a defence, coupled with the defendant's subsequent admission, left no room for doubt.

Final Verdict and Reliefs

The court decreed the suit in favour of Carnatic Café, making the initial injunction permanent. The final order includes: 1. A permanent restraint on the defendants from using the mark 'CARNATIC' or any similar mark for restaurant or allied services. 2. An order for the defendants to transfer the domain name www.carnaticrestaurant.com to the plaintiff within four weeks. 3. An award of Rs. 50,000 in damages to compensate for the loss of goodwill and reputation. 4. An award of Rs. 10,000 as costs of the suit.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the procedural consequences of failing to adhere to statutory timelines in litigation and reinforces the robust protection afforded to registered trademarks in India.