IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Karim Hotel Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kareem Dhanani - Respondent
CS(COMM) 112 of 2022 & I.A. 2695 of 2022
Decided On : 27-05-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's restaurant operations and ongoing litigation (Para 3 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. plaintiff's trademark ownership and history (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. history of disputes and concerns over defendant's usage (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. ipab involvement and order outcomes (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's interim orders to prevent further infringement (Para 14) |
| 6. next procedural steps and need for parties' presence (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--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 restaurant is located near the Jama Masjid in Old Delhi and the same is ranked as one of the top most restaurants in Asia by `TIME Magazine'. Moreover, the Plaintiff has been positively reviewed by world renowned magazines and media outlets such as the `TIME Magazine', `BBC WORLD GUIDE', `National Geographic' since the 1980's itself. The Plaintiff has also been recognized in many national and internationally acclaimed books/travelogues, such as `Lonely Planet DELHI', `World Food India', etc.
7.
Trademark holders have exclusive rights to prevent misleading similarity that may cause consumer confusion, reinforcing prior use and goodwill in trademark disputes.
Point of Law : Considering said registration, Plaintiff had filed a petition seeking cancellation of Defendant's mark before IPAB - Cancellation petition having been filed, infringement suit was stay....
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 judgment establishes the principles of trademark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing the importance of evidence demonstrating the reputation and distinctiveness of....
Unauthorized, deceptively similar use of a brand mark within the same industry constitutes infringement and passing off. Courts may grant permanent injunctions and declare a trademark well-known when....
Prior use and registration of a trademark are essential for establishing rights and preventing consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of prior user and registration of a trade mark, likelihood of confusion due to similarity, and the lack of evidence to prove a te....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the potential for the impugned mark to deceive the public and create confusion in the market, leading to the court's decision to stay its operat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.