Brief Facts:
The present matter concerns a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Private Limited (“the Plaintiff”) against Amritsari Haveli & Others (“the Defendants”). The Plaintiff sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the deceptively similar mark “Amritsari Haveli” in relation to restaurant services, alleging infringement of their registered trademark and misappropriation of goodwill.
Plaintiff’s Submissions:
1. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks “AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “AMRITSARI HAVELI” and operates 33 well-reputed restaurants (including franchises) across India under the said marks. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has applied for registration of various word and device marks across Classes 1 to 45, which are pending registration.
2. On account of long, continuous, extensive use, wide publicity, vast promotion, successful enforcement of their rights, and due to generation of enviable goodwill in the eyes of the consuming public, the said marks of the Plaintiff have acquired a status of “well-known trademark” under Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. The Defendants have illegally adopted and used the deceptively similar mark “Amritsari Haveli” in connection with identical services, namely restaurant and food services.
4. The Plaintiff through one of its customers in January, 2023 got to know about the trademark and copyright infringement and passing off activity being perpetrated against it by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs customer who resides in Delhi informed the Plaintiff that on looking up for the Plaintiff by its mark “Amritsar Haveli/ Amritsari Haveli”, the details/location of the Defendants showed up on Google and Instagram etc.
5. A cease-and-desist notice dated 25 January 2023 was issued to the Defendants, calling upon the Defendants to cease infringing upon the Plaintiffs statutory right over its registered marks, passing off their own goods/services as that of the Plaintiff by misrepresenting themselves as somehow associated with the Plaintiff and desist from doing the same at any time in future.
6. The Defendants replied to aforesaid notice vide their reply dated 18th February, 2023 wherein the said Defendants agreed to cease the use of the impugned mark and requested for time to withdraw the impugned mark completely from the public domain but again in the first week of March 2025, the Plaintiff through one of its customers got to know about the trademark infringement and passing off activity was still being perpetrated by the Defendants. On conducting further search, it was found out that it is the Defendants who are still running their operations under the infringing mark. The Plaintiff issued a notice dated 13.03.2025 which was never replied by the Defendants until the date of institution of the present suit.
The Plaintiff sought an injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with other reliefs including delivery up, rendition of accounts, and damages.
Court’s Observations:
The Court observed that the Plaintiff is both a prior user and a registered proprietor of the trademark and its device/logo. A strong prima facie case exists in the Plaintiff’s favour, and the balance of convenience also leans towards protecting the Plaintiff’s statutory and proprietary rights against an infringer or passer-off.
Order dated 16.04.2025:
1. Until the next date of hearing, the Defendants, including their representatives and agents, are restrained from using the impugned trademark or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
2. The Defendants are directed to take down all social media accounts, Google listings, websites, and any other online presence operating under the impugned mark.
3. Under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the Defendants to conduct an inspection concerning the Plaintiff’s allegations about the ongoing use, intended use, solicitation, or networking of infringing materials under the disputed trademark.
Mark Shield was pleased to assist the Plaintiff in this matter.
