Trademark infringement is established where the defendant's mark is identical or deceptively similar, particularly leading to confusion and unfair competition. Judicial admission fortifies the plaintiff's rights.

ORDER

1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of operating restaurants and providing allied food and beverage services under the name Carnatic Café since 01.01.2012. The Plaintiff asserted that, over the years, it has established itself as a well-known provider of South Indian cuisine and has developed a distinct identity based on its culinary offerings, ambience, and service standards. Mr. Pavan Jambagi, who is duly authorised, has instituted, signed, and verified the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff company.

2. The Plaintiff stated that Carnatic Café was conceived as a unique blend of traditional South Indian flavours prepared using handpicked ingredients, coupled with an emphasis on refined and courteous service. According to the Plaintiff, its menu, presentation style, and customer experience have been developed and perfected over years, resulting in a distinctive brand image recognised by customers in Delhi and the National Capital Region. The Plaintiff claims that its restaurants have earned considerable goodwill, and that Carnatic Café has become associated with consistent quality, authentic cuisine, and a distinctive dining culture.

3. The Plaintiff further submitted that it is the proprietor of several registered trademarks consisting of or containing the expression Carnatic Café, including word and device marks in Class 43 for restaurant, catering, café, snack-bar, and self-service restaurant services, as well as trademark registrations for food- related goods. Copies of the registrations have been placed on record. The Plaintiff claims that these marks have been used continuously and extensively and have acquired a high degree of distinctiveness. The Plaintiff asserted that the combination of its statutory rights arising from registration and its common-law rights arising from prior and extensive use makes Carnatic Café a strong and well-known trademark in the hospitality sector.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that it operates successful restaurants in Delhi with a substantial customer base across the NCR region. The Plaintiff also submitted that, like other successful restaurant chains, it is in the process of expanding to other major metropolitan cities including Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru. According to the Plaintiff, the brand enjoys substantial sales turnover, increasing popularity, and considerable promotional investment, all of which contribute to the recognition and goodwill associated with the mark Carnatic Café.

5. It is submitted that in December 2018 it became aware that the Defendants, who are engaged in the restaurant business in Bengaluru, had started operating a restaurant under the name CARNATIC. Defendant No.1 is a private limited company, and Defendants No. 2 to 4 are its Directors. As per information obtained from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Plaintiff asserted that all the Directors are involved in the day-to-day functioning of Defendant No.1 and are responsible for the alleged infringements. The impugned mark CARNATIC, according to the Plaintiff, is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered mark Carnatic Café and is used for identical services.

6. It is submitted that the Defendants adoption of the mark CARNATIC is dishonest, deliberate, and without any authority, licence, or permission. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendants, being in the same industry, were fully aware of the Plaintiff’s prior rights and reputation and nevertheless proceeded to adopt the impugned mark with the intention of exploiting the goodwill associated with the Plaintiff’s brand. It is