CS(COMM) 262/2021 Page 1 of 28

$~15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 22^nd February, 2022

+

CS(COMM) 262/2021 & I.As. 9140/2021, 15360/2021, 2999/2022,

15361/2021.

M/S COPENHAGEN HOSPITALITY AND RETAILS & ORS.

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior

Advocate, with Mrs. Bindra Rana,

Vikrant Rana, Ms. Priya Adlakha,

Tanvi Bhatnagar, Ms. Shilpi Ms.

Ananya Chugh, Advocates.

versus

M/S A.R. IMPEX & ORS.

....

Defendants

Through:

Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Naqeeb Nawab, Mr. Vig,

Mr. Himanshu Deora, Yashwardhan

Singh, Mr. P. D. Srikar and Mr.

Kirtan Patel, for Defendant No. 1.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

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

2022:DHC:1023

CS(COMM) 262/2021 Page 2 of 28

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 videa ‘Master Franchisee Agreement’ dated 13^th 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 10^th 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

2022:DHC:1023

CS(COMM) 262/2021 Page 3 of 28

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 p