Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Karim Hotel Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kareem Dhanani – Respondent
| 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 operate
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....
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
