New Delhi, Jul 23 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has restrained several eateries and food delivery joints from infringing the trademark of famous Veerji Malai Chaap Wale restaurant and awarded it Rs 5 lakh costs.
Justice Amit Bansal held the defendant eateries and food delivery joints failed to take any requisite steps to contest the trademark infringement suit filed by the restaurant despite having suffered an interim injunction, finding it evident that they had no defence to put forth on merits.
The conduct of the eateries and food delivery joints, the court said, not only warranted but also necessitated imposition of both costs and damages.
“Thus, in addition to the decree passed in the terms already mentioned above and taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this court also awards damages and costs of Rs five lakh in favour of the plaintiff. Each of the defendants no.2 to 6 (eateries and food delivery joints) shall pay damages and costs amounting to Rs one lakh to the plaintiff (restaurant),” the court said in a July 8 order.
The plaintiff was found to have established a clear case of infringement of trademark and copyright as well as passing off of the services as those of the plaintiff.
The five defendants were operating restaurants and food joints in Delhi, Raipur, Uttar Pradesh and Haridwar and they were listed on food delivery platforms such as Zomato and Swiggy.
Veerji Restaurant’s alleged the defendants were using trade marks in relation to their respective businesses which were identical with or deceptively similar to its mark “Veerji”.
The defendants were running eateries under the names “Veer Ji Malai Chaap Wale”, “The Veer Ji Malai Chaap Wale” and “Veere Di Malai Chaap and Kathi Kabab”.
They were proceeded ex parte in December last year.
The court said Veerji Restaurant, through its extensive and continuous use of its mark in India, significant sales made thereunder and promotion thereof, has been able to establish its goodwill and reputation under the “Veerji” mark in India.
“Therefore, the defendants 2 to 6 have been taking unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff under the plaintiff’s marks. The aforesaid defendants have deceived the unwary consumers by dishonestly adopting the impugned marks in relation to the impugned services without any plausible explanation,” the court said. PTI SKV SKV AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.