Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to direct the respondent from using the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar, Jyoti Singh, J., protected ‘BURGER SINGH’ trade mark in the franchise violation case and directed that till the next date of hearing, the respondent should not use the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar for its goods and services.
Background
Petitioner was engaged in the business of operating outlets for preparing, serving and selling variety of food items under the brand names, ‘BURGER SINGH’ and ‘MOMO SHOMO’. Petitioner stated that it adopted the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ in July 2013, and had been using the same name continuously and extensively in respect of its fast-casual dining restaurants/outlets. In 2014, petitioner adopted the logo 
, which also it had been using continuously ever since.
Petitioner stated that it was currently running 178 outlets in India under said mark and its logo was prominently displayed on all its outlets, websites and advertisements. As a result of excellent standards and unique experience of customers, products offered by the petitioner have become immensely popular in the hospitality industry, in India.
On 14-2-2023, a Franchise Agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent for five years, whereby the license was granted to the respondent to use the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ during the said term. Petitioner submitted that on noticing various breaches by the respondent and violating of the franchise agreement by the respondent, it terminated the agreement by notice dated 26-5-2025.
However, it was submitted that the respondent continued to intermittently operated the outlet under the licensed marks, which was evident from the investigator’s report. Respondent continued to conduct his activities in clandestine manner, concealing the infringing activities and breach of agreement.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim relief was made out by the petitioner. Thus, the Court protected ‘BURGER SINGH’ trade mark in the franchise violation case and directed that till the next date of hearing, the respondent should not use the mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar for its goods and services.
The Court further a Local Commissioner to visit a premise, as petitioner the petitioner apprehended that the respondent was likely to remove all evidence to deny its involvement in infringing activities. The Court stated that the Local Commissioner should be permitted to enter the premise along with the representative and/or counsel for the petitioner to conduct search/seizure. In case any resistance by the respondent, the Local Commissioner might take the assistance of the SHO of the local police to the Local Commissioner.
The Court further stated that the Local Commissioner should conduct a search at the said premises and seize any infringing material, including hoardings, signages, display boards, etc., bearing the petitioner’s registered mark ‘BURGER SINGH’ and/or 
logo or any other mark identical with or deceptively or confusingly similar. All material seized would be sealed and signed by the Local Commissioner in presence of the parties and released on superdari to the respondent on his undertaking as and when directed, he should produce the same.
[Tipping Mr. Pink (P) Ltd. v. Prabhat Ranjan, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4347, decided on 30-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Jayant Kumar, Advocate.
