Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Burger King Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Swapnil Patil & Ors. - Respondents
CS (Comm) 303 of 2022
Decided On : 10-05-2022
Injunction - Trademark Infringement - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, a well-known international restaurant chain, sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants engaged in trademark infringement and operating fake websites offering franchise opportunities using the Plaintiff's trademarks. The Plaintiff demonstrated its extensive use of the BURGER KING trademark and the Defendants' unauthorized use of the same.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction, and the balance of convenience lay in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court granted the injunction, restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff's trademarks and engaging in activities detrimental to the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, dilution of trademarks, and unauthorized use of domain names.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, as well as Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to grant the ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff.
Final Decision: The Court granted the ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff's trademarks and engaging in activities detrimental to the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
ORDER
I.A. 7303/2022 (Exemption)
1. Subject to the Plaintiff filing translated copies, clearer copies and documents with proper margins, which it may seek to place reliance on, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted.
2. Application is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. 7304/2022 (Additional Documents)
3. Present application has been preferred on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking leave to file additional documents under Order 11 Rule 1(4) CPC.
4. Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. Application is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. 7305/2022 (Exemption from advance notice to Defendant No. 7 and 8)
6. Since Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of Defendants No.7 and 8, present application has become infructuous.
7. Application is disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 7306/2022 (Exemption from serving advance copy of the suit paperbook to Defendants No. 1-3 and 15)
8. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
9. Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 7307/2022 (Exemption from e-filing unredacted copies of documents containing privileged information and seeking permission for filing redacted versions thereof)
10. Issue notice to the Defendants.
11. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Defendants No.7 and 8 and Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Defendant No.12.
12. Reply be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
13. On steps being taken by the Plaintiff, notice be issued to the remaining Defendants, through all permissible modes, returnable on 26.09.2022.
CS (COMM) 303/2022
14. Let plaint be registered as a suit.
15. Issue summons.
16. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Defendants No.7 and 8 and Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Defendant No.12.
17. Written statements be filed by Defendants No.7, 8 and 12 within 30 days from today along with affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff.
18. Replication thereto be filed by the Plaintiff within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement along with an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by Defendants No.7, 8 and 12.
19. Upon requisite steps being taken by the Plaintiff, summons be issued to the remaining Defendants, through all permissible modes, returnable on 29.07.2022 before the learned Joint Registrar.
20. Summons shall state that written statements be filed by the remaining Defendants within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statements, Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Plaintiff.
21. Replication be filed by the Plaintiff within 15 days of the receipt of the written statements. Along with the replication, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the Defendants shall be filed by the Plaintiff.
22. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
23. List before the Court on 26.09.2022.
I.A. 7302/2022 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiff)
24. Present application has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction.
25. Issue notice to the Defendants.
26. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Defendants No.7 and 8 and Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Defendant No.12.
27. Reply be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
28. On steps being taken by the Plaintiff, notice be issued to the remaining Defendants, through all perm
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to grant an ex parte ad-interim injunction i....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the mark 'BURGER KING' as a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the distinctiveness of trade marks.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks and prevention of infringement and passing off, as well as the application of procedural rules under the Civil Procedu....
Court affirmed the need for immediate injunction against unauthorized use of registered trademarks to prevent fraud and protect brand goodwill, recognizing the plaintiffs' established rights.
Prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction based on trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement.
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
