The Delhi Commercial Court recently addressed a trademark infringement dispute involving the well-known restaurant chain Carnatic Caf\u00e9, owned by Pavan Jambagi. Carnatic Caf\u00e9 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 \u201cCARNATIC,\u201d 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 Caf\u00e9. This led the Court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction in April 2019 to restrain the defendants from using the mark.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s assertions, the matter proceeded based on the plaintiff\u2019s evidence. In 2022, the defendants submitted an affidavit claiming that they had already ceased using the disputed name \u201cCARNATIC\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
The Court had to consider whether the defendants\u2019 use of the name \u201cCARNATIC\u201d constituted infringement of the plaintiff\u2019s registered trademark \u201cCARNATIC CAF\u00c9.\u201d It also examined whether the defendants\u2019 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\u2019 own admission that they had discontinued use of the disputed name.<\/p>\n
To substantiate his claims, the plaintiff submitted trademark registration certificates for \u201cCarnatic Caf\u00e9,\u201d 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\u2019s market presence. The plaintiff also produced evidence demonstrating the defendants\u2019 use of the name \u201cCARNATIC\u201d 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\u2019s evidence uncontested.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 defence struck off and their own affidavit confirming non-use, the Court found no dispute regarding the plaintiff\u2019s exclusive rights over the mark. Consequently, the interim injunction issued in 2019 was made permanent, and the defendants were restrained from using \u201cCARNATIC\u201d 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 \u20b950,000 along with costs of \u20b910,000, reinforcing the significance of protecting established trademarks in the hospitality industry.<\/p>\n