Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Karim Hotel Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
Kareem Dhanani - Defendant
CS(COMM) 112 of 2022 & I.A. 2695 of 2022
Decided On : 27-05-2022
Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 - Permanent injunction - Suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain infringement, passing off, delivery up, damages etc., has now been filed by Plaintiff on ground that, owing to long delay in disposal of said cancellation petition, Defendant is continuing to expand their restaurant business – Considering registration, Plaintiff had filed a petition seeking cancellation of Defendant's mark before IPAB - Cancellation petition having been filed, infringement suit was stayed by this Court (Para 7).
Findings of the Court :
Court notes that this is second round of litigation between parties. A perusal of record shows that Plaintiff is prior owner and user of marks “KARIM/KARIM'S/KAREEM” for Mughlai food and North Indian delicacies, since year 1913 - Admitted adoption of impugned mark by Defendant is since 2003, which is almost 90 years after Plaintiff’s adoption - In first round of litigation, suit had been initially adjourned and thereafter, disposed of, permitting Plaintiff to file proceedings after IPD taking a decision in cancellation petition - Unfortunately however, said cancellation petition has continued to remain pending and has not proceeded further - With enactment of Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, IPAB has also been abolished and thus case would have to be transferred to jurisdictional High Court. Ld - Counsel submits that matter is yet to be listed and no notice of listing in a High Court has been received by Plaintiff
Result : Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Vide previous order 17th February, 2022, the Defendant had been directed to file a list of his restaurants which are operating in the name of ‘KAREEM’S’. Subsequently, no affidavit was filed and none had appeared for the Defendant. Accordingly, vide order dated 4th April, 2022, the Defendant was granted a last and final opportunity to plead and appear in this case.
3. Today, Mr. Vivek Singh, ld. Counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of the Defendant. He submits that his client is currently running 41 restaurants, the details of which have been handed over along with the affidavit of the Defendant -Mr. Kareem Dhanani. The said list of the restaurants which are being operated by the Defendant and in franchisee in the Defendant’s name is set out below :
KAREEM’S RESTAURANTS (FRANCHISE BASIS)
|
| Number of Restaurants |
|
| India |
|
|
| Maharashtra |
|
|
| Mumbai (9) |
|
|
| 1 | 1 | Bandra |
| 2 | 2 | Powai |
| 3 | 3 | Lokhandwala (Newly Opened) |
| 4 | 4 | Goregaon |
| 5 | 5 | Kandivali |
| 6 | 6 | Kalina |
| 7 | 7 | Dahisar |
| 8 | 8 | Ghatkopar |
| 9 | 9 | Versova |
| Thane (3) |
|
|
| 1 | 10 | Pallava, Dombivali |
| 2 | 11 | Mira Road |
| 3 | 12 | Hiranandani Estate |
| Pune (4) |
|
|
| 1 | 13 | Aundh |
| 2 | 14 | Koregaon Park |
| 3 | 15 | Solankhi Vihar |
| 4 | 16 | Magarpatta |
| Solapur (1) | 17 |
|
| Nagpur (2) |
|
|
| 1 | 18 | Nagpur Sadar |
| 2 | 19 | Pagalkhana Chowk |
| Aurangabad (2) |
|
|
| 1 | 20 | Nirala Bazaar |
| 2 | 21 | Prozone |
| Sangli (1) | 22 |
|
| West Bengal (3) |
|
|
|
|
| Kolkatta |
| 1 | 23 | Salt Lake |
| 2 | 24 | Park Street |
| 3 | 25 | Chinar Park |
| Uttar Pradesh (8) |
|
|
|
|
| Lucknow |
| 1 | 26 | Gomti Nagar |
| 2 | 27 | Ashiana |
| 3 | 28 | Pheonix Palazo Mall |
| 4 | 29 | Aliganj |
| 5 | 30 | Shalimar Mall (new) |
| 6 | 31 | Jaunpur (new) |
| 7 | 32 | Bareilly |
| 8 | 33 | Rampur |
| Madhya Pradesh (2) |
|
|
|
|
| Raipur |
| 1 | 34 | Mowa |
| 2 | 35 | Civil Lines |
| Jharkhand (1) |
|
|
| 1 | 36 | Ranchi |
| Jammu & Kashmir (1) | 37 | Kashmir |
| Karnataka (1) |
|
|
| 1 | 38 | Bengaluru |
|
|
|
|
| International (3) |
|
|
| Dubai | 39 | 39 |
| Abu Dhabi | 40 | 40 |
| Canada | 41 | 41 |
4. As recorded in the previous order dated 4th April, 2022, the Plaintiff in the present case, is the proprietor of the well-known trademark “KARIM/KARIM’S/KAREEM” (word per se /stylized /as a device) as also of the trading name-M/s Karim Hotel Pvt. Ltd., of which the word/mark “KARIM” forms a prominent and essential feature.
5. The founder of the Plaintiff coined and adopted the trade name “KARIM’S” in the year 1913. The mark was derived from the name of the original founder Haji Karimuddin. The said mark is being used by the Plaintiff in respect of restaurants, catering and other related businesses since more than 100 years. As averred in the plaint, the word “KARIM'S” is exclusively and uniquely associated with the Plaintiff for high quality Mughlai food. The Plaintiff has trademark registrations in various classes including Class 16, 29, 30, 42, 43, both for the mark “KARIM” and “KAREEM” as also devices, logos and other derivatives thereof. The Plaintiff also has registrations for the caption “Secret of good mood Taste of Karim's food” in Classes 16, 30 and 43. The Plaintiff also uses the domain name www.karimhoteldelhi.com, accessible to customers both in India and abroad.
6. The Plaintiff’s case is that the founder hails from a line of ancestors who were Shahikhansamas (royal cooks) in the Mughal Empire and who developed a line of cuisine commonly and popularly known as Mughlai food. Its flagship restaur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
