Today, On 26th August, The Bombay High Court granted an interim stay on a Pune court’s order that allowed a local burger joint to use the ‘Burger King’ brand name. Burger King Corporation filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Pune-based restaurant’s use of their name, despite operating since 2008, causing significant damage to its brand reputation.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday, August 26, 2024, issued an interim stay on a Pune trial court‘s decision that had permitted a local burger joint in Pune to use the trademark ‘Burger King’. This move comes after the U.S.-based fast-food giant, Burger King Corporation, challenged the Pune court’s ruling.
The global company sought to protect its renowned brand name and approached the High Court for relief.
The initial ruling delivered by Pune district judge Sunil Gangadharrao Vedpathak on July 22, 2024, and made public the following day. The district judge dismissed a lawsuit that had been filed on February 18, 2011.
Read Also: [Reused Oil Dispute] Madras HC Stays Suspension of KFC Outlet License
In its appeal to the Bombay High Court, Burger King Corporation argued that an injunction had been in place since January 28, 2012, which prevented the Pune eatery from using the ‘Burger King’ name, limiting them instead to just ‘Burger‘. However, the local restaurant recently started using ‘King‘ as well, which the U.S. company contended a violation of the long-standing injunction. Advocate Hiren Kamod, representing Burger King, presented this argument before the Division Bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil.
The High Court requested a copy of the original injunction and the recent trial court order that allowed the Pune-based restaurant to use the ‘Burger King’ name. However, the appellants needed additional time to present the necessary documents.
Kamod mentioned that while they did not have the interim order available, they could provide the final judgment, highlighting some factual errors in the trial court’s decision. The court scheduled a further hearing for the case at 2:30 PM on the same day.
Burger King, established in 1954 by James McLamore and David Edgerton, headquartered in Miami, Florida, and operates a global chain of over 13,000 fast food restaurants across more than 100 countries. The ‘Burger King’ trademark has been in use since the company’s inception and is registered in 122 countries, including 22 in the Asia Pacific and Southeast Asia regions.
The U.S.-based company filed a lawsuit after discovering that a Pune-based restaurant had been operating under the same name since 2008. Burger King Corporation claimed that this unauthorized use of their name was damaging their brand’s reputation and sought a permanent injunction to prevent the Pune restaurant from using the ‘Burger King’ name.
The U.S.-based Burger King Corporation alleged trademark infringement and sought both damages and a permanent injunction against the Pune-based ‘Burger King’ restaurant.
Read Also: Burger King Murder Case | Patiala House Court Grants 7-Day Police Custody to One Accused
However, the Pune district court ruled in favour of the local establishment, noting that the Pune-based ‘Burger King’ had been using the name and brand since 1992, well before the U.S. corporation registered its trademark in India and entered the Indian market.
Judge Sunil Gangadharrao Vedpathak stated,
“With respect to relief of perpetual injunction is concerned, admittedly the plaintiff has started to provide services through restaurant under its trademark Burger King in India particularly in the year 2014 whereas since 1991-92 defendants are using the trademark Burger King to provide restaurant services. Even the plaintiff has not placed on record the registration certificate about registration of its trademark in India under class 42 prior to 1991-92. Admittedly plaintiff has registered its trademark Burger King under class 42 pertaining to restaurant services is of 06.10.2006. So, considering the fact that defendants are prior user of trademark in question, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has no cause of action to seek relief of perpetual injunction.”
Regarding the claims for compensation and damages, the judge observed,
“So far as claim of compensation/damages of Rs. 20,00,000 is concerned, except bare interested words that due to ex parte order sought by the plaintiff against them, they had caused loss to their goodwill. He had to answer the questions of some customers including the plaintiff. As such, according to him, due to all these things, defendants had caused loss of Rs.20,00,000/-. However, there is no supporting evidence to prove the actual damages caused to defendants. Therefore, like plaintiff, defendants are also not entitled to claim of damages.”