US-based food giant Burger King Corporation has moved the Bombay High Court after it lost a 13-year-old legal battle against its namesake eatery in Pune after a district court dismissed a suit filed by the company alleging trademark infringement.
#Breaking: US based food giant “Burger King” has petitioned the Bombay High Court challenging a Trial Court’s order allowing a Pune-based eatery to use “Burger King.”#BombayHighCourt #BurgerKing pic.twitter.com/tBxl4EF41I
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 26, 2024
Pune district judge Sunil Vedpathak, in the order on August 16, said the city-based eatery ‘Burger King’ was operating even before the US burger joint opened shop in India and that the latter failed to prove the local food outlet had infringed its trademark.
The court dismissed the 2011 suit filed by the Burger King Corporation, seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of the trademark, passing off (the trademark as theirs), as well as monetary damages.
Name Pune International Airport After Sant Tukaram, Demands Murlidhar Mohol
The suit, filed against Anahita Irani and Shapoor Irani, owners of the Pune-based food joint, also sought ₹20 lakh as damages.
On the plaintiff company’s demand for permanent injunction, the court said the Burger King Corporation started to provide services through restaurants under its trademark Burger King in India particularly in the year 2014, whereas the city-based eatery was using the trademark ‘Burger King’ to provide restaurant services since 1991-92.
“Defendants have been using the trade name for their restaurant since about 1992. The pleadings put forth by the plaintiff are totally silent about how customers have been confused due to use of trade mark Burger King by defendants to their restaurant,” it said.
The court said the Burger King Corporation has “miserably failed” to prove that the eatery had infringed its trademark Burger King while running the restaurant in Pune.
Since there was absolutely no evidence regarding proof of infringement of the plaintiff company’s trademark and actual damage caused to it, the company was not entitled for any damages, it said.
“Thus, in the absence of cogent evidence, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled for damages, rendition of accounts and the relief of perpetual injunction,” the order said.
(With PTI inputs)
