JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

I.A. No. 7085/2021 (u/Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for ad-interim injunction)

I. The Dispute:

1. Plaintiffs jointly conduct business of operating a chain of pizzerias under the name and style of ‘LA PINO’Z PIZZA’ by granting franchises under a master-franchise model, wherein they appoint a master-franchise in one state - which is given the right to appoint sub-franchise outlets in cities of that state - and assist it in establishing their business. Under this arrangement, Plaintiff No. 1 vide a ‘Master Franchisee Agreement’ dated 13th June, 2007, appointed Defendant No. 1 as the master-franchise in the state of Gujarat. It operated five self-owned LA PINO’Z PIZZA franchise outlets in Ahmedabad, and issued sub-franchises to other outlets in the state of Gujarat, for which certain tripartite agreements were executed. In the beginning of March, 2021, Plaintiff No. 1 started receiving complaints from its sub-franchise in Gujarat (other than Ahmedabad) about non-cooperation of their Master Franchisee Agreement. Disputes aggravated, leading the parties herein to execute a Termination Agreement dated 10th April 2021, inter-alia agreeing for settlement of outstanding payments/dues, as per books of accounts of both parties. Post termination, Defendant No. 1, set up its own LA MILANO pizzeria, in/around the same premises where it was earlier operating as a franchisee, which has given rise to the present dispute. The Plaintiffs received calls from the existing franchises informing that the hoarding/ display boards of defendant’s outlets in the city were being replaced by LA MILANO PIZZERIA hoarding, with a look-alike logo of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2, who was a former employee of the Plaintiffs, was found at the site assisting them in transitioning from LA PINO’Z PIZZA to LA MILANO PIZZERIA and approaching other franchise owners of the Plaintiff in Ahmedabad.

II. The Suit:

2. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant No. 1 has entered the pizzeria business in complete violation of the terms of the Master Franchisee Agreement as well as the Termination Agreement. They are aggrieved by the Defendant’s adoption of the mark LA MILANO PIZZERIA and an accompanying logo which is stated to be a rip-off of the Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks in its brand name and logo, as well as copyright in its original artistic work. The Plaintiffs are further aggrieved by Defendant’s adoption of pizza names which are also stated to emulate the names, recipes and ingredients of the Plaintiffs' pizzas. Further, the Plaintiffs state that they have put in a lot of effort, labour, time and capital into developing their brand name and logo in LA PINO’Z PIZZA through advertisements in a wide variety of print and electronic media, and promotion on social medias, which has translated into enormous goodwill and reputation for the brand LA PINO’Z PIZZA. They claim that the brand is exclusively associated with the Plaintiffs, in the eyes of members of the public as well of the trade, and thus, they claim to be aggrieved by the Defendants adoption of the Plaintiffs social media pages, IVR telephone numbers, and occupation and dressing-up of the same premises that were once LA PINO’Z PIZZERIA in the same style as LA MILANO’S PIZZERIA.

III. Previous orders of this Court:

3. In the instant suit for infringement of trademark and copyright, as well as for passing off, a limited ad interim ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the instant application vide Order dated 22nd June, 2021, restraining the Defendants as follows:

“25. (…) Accordingly, the following interim relief is deemed fit to be granted till the next date of hearing:

(a) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their partners, associates, franchisee, sub-

franchisee, licensees, sub-licensees, agents, servants, affiliates or any one claiming under it, directly or indirectly, in any manner infringing the Plainti