Termination of franchise agreements ceases all brand usage rights; interim relief permitted to prevent public confusion while disputes are resolved through arbitration.

2. These are two appeals under Section 37 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) challenging the impugned orders dated 4th August, 2025 passed by the ld. District Judge (Commercial Court-02) Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter ‘the ld. Commercial Court’). The impugned orders are interim orders passed in Petitions under Section 9 of the Act. The same arise out of an arbitration clause contained in the two franchise agreements dated 31st January, 2022 (hereinafter, ‘the subject agreements’).

3. The brief background of this case is that the Respondent had entered into two franchise agreements for opening of two outlets by the name ‘Mamagoto’ and ‘Dhaba’. Disputes had arisen between the parties in respect of payment of franchise fee, etc. The Appellant preferred the petitions under Section 9 of the Act being, OMP (I) (COMM) No. 863/2025 and OMP (I) (COMM) No. 862/2025 as the subject agreements contained an arbitration clause. In these petitions, initially vide orders dated 22nd July, 2025, an interim injunction was granted by the ld. Commercial Court, in the following terms:

OMP (I) (COMM) No. 863/2025

“14. In the present case, the Agreement has been terminated by the petitioner. Since the petitioner is the owner of trade mark and had permitted the respondent to use the same during the tenure of Agreement, which has now been terminated by the petitioner, in considered opinion, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the respondent, its employees, successors, promoters, agents and any person claiming through or under them are hereby restrained from using/ publishing/ displaying/showing of trade mark MAMAGOTO at Gulshan One 29 Sector 129, Noida, Uttar Pradesh till next Date of Hearing.”

OMP (I) (COMM) No. 862/2025

“14. In the present case, the Agreement has been terminated by the petitioner. Since the petitioner is the owner of brand

name and had permitted the respondent to use the same during the tenure of Agreement, which has now been terminated by the petitioner, in considered opinion, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the respondent, its employees, successors, promoters, agents and any person claiming through or under them are hereby restrained from using/ publishing/ displaying/showing of brand name DHABA ESTD.1986 at Gulshan One 29 Sector 129, Noida, Uttar Pradesh till next Date of Hearing.”

4. However, subsequently vide the impugned orders, the said injunctions have been vacated and the petitions under Section 9 of the Act have been dismissed.

5. Notice was issued in these appeals vide order dated 19th August, 2025.

6. On behalf of the Appellant, ld. Counsel relies upon various clauses of the subject agreements dated 31st January, 2022 executed between the parties in respect of establishing a restaurant under the brand name/ trade name ‘Mamagoto’ and `Dhaba’, including Clause 2.1 which recognizes that the Intellectual Property rights of the Appellant qua the said trade name continues to remain with the said party during the term of the subject agreement. It is also highlighted by ld. Counsel for the Appellant that in terms of Clause 4.1 of the subject agreements the ‘Project Management Fee’, there