Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction In Favour Of Burger King In Trademark Infringement Suit

Nupur Thapliyal
18 May 2022 7:45 AM GMT
Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction In Favour Of Burger King In Trademark Infringement Suit
x

The Delhi High Court has recently granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of 'BURGER KING' in the trademark infringement suit filed by it against the defendants alleging that they were misusing, its registered trademarks and also engaging in registering infringing domain names incorporating the trademark 'BURGER KING' and operating fake websites without its permission...

The Delhi High Court has recently granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of 'BURGER KING' in the trademark infringement suit filed by it against the defendants alleging that they were misusing, its registered trademarks and also engaging in registering infringing domain names incorporating the trademark 'BURGER KING' and operating fake websites without its permission and authorisation.

Justice Jyoti Singh thus restrained the defendants from advertising, offering any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names or pages bearing the trademarks BURGER KING, BK or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks.

The Court also directed disclosure of the WHOIS details with respect to the domain names www.burgerkingfranchises.co.in and www.burgerkingfranchises.in and blocking access to the same.

It also directed blocking of the access and disabling of the domain names www.burgerkingfranchises.co.in and www.burgerkingfranchises.in. Furthermore, direction was also given for issuance of Notifications to various Internet Service Providers or licensees requiring them to block access to the websites at www.burgerkingfranchises.co.in and www.burgerkingfranchises.in.

Burger King claimed to be the second largest quick service restaurant hamburger Company in the world, managing and operating a worldwide chain of over 18,000 quick service restaurants serving more than 1 million customers daily in approximately 100 countries and U.S. territories worldwide.

It was claimed that since the launch of its first restaurant in India in the year 2014, Burger King Corporation had opened many more BURGER KING restaurants across India including in Gurgaon, Noida, Mumbai, etc and that it was presently operating over 250 BURGER KING restaurants in India.

It was stated that in or around March, 2021, Plaintiff through its Indian Franchisee was informed about the existence of the website www.burgerkingfranchises.in and that the Defendant No. 2 was duping unsuspecting members of the public into believing that he was a representative of Burger King India Limited.

It was submitted that the Defendant No.2 was also offering the opportunity to operate a café or lounge or restaurant of BURGER KING. It was averred that Defendants No. l to 3 were engaged in registering misleading domain names incorporating the Plaintiff's BURGER KING trademarks and operating fake websites, thereupon inviting the general public to apply for BURGER KING franchise opportunities.

It was also argued that the Defendant No. l5 representing unknown entities or individuals or group of persons were engaged in registering misleading domain names incorporating the Plaintiff's BURGER KING trademarks and operating fake websites, thereupon inviting the general public to apply for BURGER KING franchise opportunities.

It was thus submitted that the main Defendants operate in an extremely clandestine manner and had not provided their correct address on their website. It was added that the address provided on the website operated by Defendants was that of Burger King India Limited (which was the former name of the Plaintiff's Indian Franchisee), which was clearly another attempt to mislead consumers into believing that their activities were authorized by the Plaintiff.

"Having heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, this Court is of the view that Plaintiff have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad- interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted," the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within two weeks of the order.

Case Title: BURGER KING CORPORATION v. SWAPNIL PATIL & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 461

Click Here To Read Order 


Next Story