A district court in Pune, India, has dismissed a long-standing trademark infringement case filed by the global fast-food chain Burger King against a local eatery of the same name, citing the latter's prior use of the trademark.
The Pune district judge Sunil Vedpathak, in the order dated 16 August 2024, stated that the local "Burger King" had been operating since before the American brand entered the Indian market and that the US giant had not successfully proven any trademark infringement.
The court dismissed the 2011 suit filed by Burger King, which sought a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of the trademark.
The suit also demanded Rs2m ($23,833) in damages from the Pune eatery's owners, Anahita and Shapoor Irani.
The court noted that Burger King began its operations in India in 2014, while the Pune-based eatery had been using the "Burger King" trademark 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 the trademark Burger King by defendants to their restaurant," the court observed.
Burger King "miserably failed" to prove that the Pune restaurant infringed upon its trademark, according to the court.
It concluded that without evidence of infringement or actual damage, Burger King was not entitled to damages.
The plaintiff's first Indian Burger King restaurant was opened in New Delhi on 9 November 2014.
Founded in 1954, the US company operates a worldwide chain of 13,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries and territories.
The first Burger King franchised restaurant in Asia opened in 1982 and there are currently more than 1,200 restaurants in Asia.
The company has been using the Burger King trademark since 1954 and claims that it has gained global reputation and goodwill.
The Iranis, opposing the suit, stated that there was no similarity between the plaintiff's trademark and their shop, apart from its name.
They alleged harassment and intimidation since the suit was filed and sought Rs2m in compensation for mental suffering.
However, the court denied monetary relief to them as well, citing a lack of substantial proof beyond oral evidence.
