Delhi High Court: In a suit for trademark infringement filed by Karim’s Hotel Pvt Ltd. (‘Karim’s’) (plaintiff) against the defendant for using the mark and name ‘Karins’s’, the Single Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J., granted relief to Karim’s, while noting that the use of the mark ‘Karin’s’ by the defendant was indistinguishable from the mark of the plaintiff ‘Karims’s’, and further that it was a deliberate attempt by the defendants to deceive consumers.
Background
The case involves a dispute between Karims, proprietors of the trademark “KARIM’S,” and the defendants, who allegedly infringed upon this trademark by using a similar mark “KARIN’S” and passing off their goods as that of Karim’s’.
The collaboration between Karim’s and defendant 1 was marked by a lease agreement executed in 2008. This agreement delineated terms for the operation of Karim’s restaurant at the leased premises, including provisions for rental payments and the use of Karim’s trademark. However, the venture faltered, prompting Karims to terminate the lease prematurely in 2009. Subsequently, defendant 1, in contravention of a cancellation agreement, continued to use marks similar to “KARIM’S”.
It has been alleged by Karim’s, the plaintiff, that the defendants purportedly sought to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the “KARIM’S” trademark, misleading consumers into believing a continued association with them, by using a nearly identical mark “KARIN’S” for their restaurant business. Despite cease-and-desist notices, defendants persisted in their unauthorized use of the marks.
Decision and Analysis
The Court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties. The Plaintiffs provided documentation demonstrating their ownership of the “KARIM’S” trademark and asserted copyright protection over related labels. The Court noted the extensive imitation of Karim’s marks by the defendants, including font, design, and taglines, which constituted infringement and violation of copyright.
The Court further noted that despite being served summons and afforded the opportunity to contest the suit, the defendants failed to file written statements, resulting in closure of their right. Additionally, the Court also took note of the fact that the defendants’ claims of suffering financial loss due to premature termination of a franchise agreement were deemed unsubstantiated as no such agreement was produced before the Court.
The Court observed that the defendants’ activities amounted to deliberate deception of consumers, as they continued to use Karim’s marks despite termination of the lease agreement. The Court said, “Defendants have entirely imitated Plaintiff No. 1’s registered trademarks, replicating all aspects such as font of the letters, design of the logo, color scheme, size, style, and placement of letter and the taglines. Both the marks are also used for identical services. Given the prior business relationship between the parties, this appears to be a deliberate effort by the Defendants to deceive consumers into believing that their commercial partnership with the Plaintiffs continues.”
The Court, therefore, held that Karims i.e., the plaintiffs have successfully established a case of infringement of its registered trademark and copyright against the defendants, and decreed the suit in favour of the Karim’s, ruling that the defendants had indeed infringed upon the Plaintiffs’ trademark and violated their copyright.
[Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Nizamuddin, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3509, decided on 03-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocates for the Plaintiff: Ridhima Goyal, Mohd. Affan
Advocate for the Defendants: Jagdeep Anand
