Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction under S.9 of A&C act Restricting Savera Eats' Usage of 'Burger Singh'

Brief Facts:

Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited, the Petitioner, approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) against M/s Savera Eats, the Respondent, seeking an injunction to prevent the latter from using the Petitioner's registered "Burger Singh" trademarks. The dispute between the parties stemmed from a Franchise Agreement signed on 7th January 2022, which included an arbitration clause. Prior to commencing arbitration proceedings as per the Agreement, the Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“Arbitration Act”), 1996, requesting interim relief.

In October 2023, the Petitioner observed breaches of the Agreement by the Respondent and issued a show cause notice seeking rectification. The Respondent responded by asserting its right to terminate the Agreement. Consequently, the Petitioner terminated the Agreement as allowed under Article 13.3(i) of the Agreement. Despite termination, the Respondent allegedly continued to use the "Burger Singh" trademark, infringing upon the Petitioner's rights and violating contractual obligations.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court acknowledged the Petitioner's establishment of statutory rights over the trademark "Burger Singh". The foundation for the authorization granted to the Respondent to utilize the Petitioner's registered trademarks stems from the Agreement executed between the parties. As per Article 13.3(i) of the Agreement, the termination notice issued by the Petitioner would inherently revoke the authorization bestowed upon the Respondent to operate its franchise outlet under the Petitioner's mark. Moreover, the High Court noted that Article 14.1(d) of the Agreement obligated the Respondent to cease the use of the Petitioner's trademarks and the operation of the franchise outlet upon termination.

Therefore, the High Court held that the Petitioner established a prima facie case in its favor. It noted that failure to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction would result in irreparable loss for the Petitioner.

Accordingly, until the next hearing, the High Court ordered the Respondent, or anyone acting on its behalf, to refrain from using the Petitioner's registered trademark "Burger Singh" or any mark identical or deceptively similar to it.

Moreover, considering the Petitioner's apprehension regarding the potential removal of evidence by the Respondent, the High Court held it necessary to preserve evidence of infringement. Thus, the appointment of a Local Commissioner was sought to visit the premises of the Respondent.

The Commissioner was tasked with conducting a search at the specified premises, seizing any infringing material, and inventorying it. The Commissioner was also authorized to arrange for photography/videography of the execution of the commission.

In case of locked premises, the Commissioner was permitted to break open the locks. The Station House Officer (SHO) of the local police station was directed to provide assistance and protection to the Commissioner upon request.

Case Title: Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited Vs Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 594

Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 116/2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Jayant Kumar, Advocate.

Advocate for the Respondent: None.

Click Here To Read/Download Order or Judgment