Summary
The Delhi Commercial Court adjudicated a trademark infringement case involving Carnatic Café and a Bengaluru restaurant using the name “CARNATIC.” The plaintiff, owner of Carnatic Café, provided extensive evidence of trademark registration and longstanding use, while the defendants’ late written statement was rejected. The defendants admitted in an affidavit to discontinuing the use of the disputed name and undertook not to use it again. The Court found clear infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, making the interim injunction permanent and awarding damages and costs to the plaintiff. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting trademark rights within the Indian hospitality sector.
Background of the Dispute
The Delhi Commercial Court recently addressed a trademark infringement dispute involving the well-known restaurant chain Carnatic Café, owned by Pavan Jambagi. Carnatic Café has been operating since 2012 and has built a strong reputation in Delhi and the NCR for offering authentic South Indian cuisine and a unique dining experience. In 2018, the plaintiff discovered that Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and its directors had opened a restaurant in Bengaluru under the name “CARNATIC,” offering similar services. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were also promoting the name across online platforms such as Zomato, JustDial, Dineout, Facebook, and through their own domain, resulting in customer confusion and an attempt to ride on the goodwill of Carnatic Café. This led the Court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction in April 2019 to restrain the defendants from using the mark.
Procedural History
After the injunction was issued, the defendants attempted to file a written statement; however, it was rejected for being filed beyond the permissible time limit, causing their defence to be struck off. With the defendants unable to contest the plaintiff’s assertions, the matter proceeded based on the plaintiff’s evidence. In 2022, the defendants submitted an affidavit claiming that they had already ceased using the disputed name “CARNATIC” and provided an undertaking to the Court that they would not adopt the mark in the future. This admission became significant in determining the outcome of the case.
Issues for Determination
The Court had to consider whether the defendants’ use of the name “CARNATIC” constituted infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “CARNATIC CAFÉ.” It also examined whether the defendants’ conduct amounted to passing off and unfair competition, given the similarity in the nature of services and the possibility of consumer confusion. Another key issue was the applicability of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows the Court to pronounce judgment when a defendant fails to file a written statement. The Court further assessed the legal effect of the defendants’ own admission that they had discontinued use of the disputed name.
Evidence Presented
To substantiate his claims, the plaintiff submitted trademark registration certificates for “Carnatic Café,” along with extensive documentation showing long-standing and continuous use of the mark. This included photographs of the restaurants, menus, promotional materials, sales figures, and online listings highlighting the brand’s market presence. The plaintiff also produced evidence demonstrating the defendants’ use of the name “CARNATIC” on restaurant signage, menus, social media content, online food-delivery platforms, and a registered domain. In contrast, the defendants, whose written statement had been rejected, submitted only a 2022 affidavit from their Managing Director, admitting compliance with the injunction and giving an undertaking not to use the mark again. This left the plaintiff’s evidence uncontested.
Court’s Findings and Final Order
The Court held that the plaintiff had clearly established infringement of his registered trademark, along with acts of passing off and unfair competition by the defendants. With the defendants’ defence struck off and their own affidavit confirming non-use, the Court found no dispute regarding the plaintiff’s exclusive rights over the mark. Consequently, the interim injunction issued in 2019 was made permanent, and the defendants were restrained from using “CARNATIC” or any deceptively similar mark for restaurant services or online promotions, including in domain names. The Court further directed the defendants to transfer their domain name to the plaintiff within four weeks and awarded damages of ₹50,000 along with costs of ₹10,000, reinforcing the significance of protecting established trademarks in the hospitality industry.
Authored by Mr. TK Tushar