INDIA- Hamburger QSR chain Burger King has lost a 13-year trademark infringement case filed against a local eatery in the city of Pune sharing the same name.
The Pune district court dismissed the case, stating the city-based restaurant ‘Burger King’ started operations before the fast food giant entered the Indian market.
The plaintiff argued it has been using the ‘Burger King’ trademark since its inception in 1954 and is known globally.
Burger King argued that the high quality of its products and services under the trademark has made the name ‘Burger King’ gain goodwill and a good reputation among customers. The plaintiff argued the local establishment benefitted directly from this reputation.
According to official documents presented to the court by the defendants’ lawyers, the plaintiff’s first Burger King restaurant was opened in New Delhi in November 2014. The defendants also argued there was no formal trademark filing of the name in India.
The defendants also argued the suit was filed with malicious intentions meant to discourage local businesses. They argued apart from the name, there was no similarities between the local establishment and the fast food giant.
According to Pune District Judge Sunil Vedpathak, the local establishment has used the ‘Burger King’ name since 1992, which predated Burger King’s entry into the Indian market in 2014. As such, no evidence of trademark infringement or associated damages was found.
The Burger King Corporation had filed the case in 2011 seeking a permanent injunction against the local establishment restraining infringement of trademark, passing off the name as theirs and monetary damages.
The suit was filed against the owners of the local establishment, couple Anahita & Shapoor Irani and sought INR 2,000,000 (US$23,835) in damages.
In the ruling, Judge Sunil Vedpathak said, “The pleadings put forth by the plaintiff are totally silent about how customers have been confused due to use of trademark Burger King by defendants in their restaurant.”
“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 to any damages.”
Sign up to receive our email newsletters with the latest news updates and insights from Africa and the World HERE
