Topics: India, Burger King, Food and Drink
Burger King has lost its copyright infringement case against another restaurant of the same name, bringing to a close a 13-year legal battle.
Back in 2009, Burger King Corporation issued a cease and desist notice against Burger King in Pune city, India for alleged trademark infringement.
And in 2011, Burger King Corporation launched a lawsuit seeking damages, but the owners of the Burger King found in the western state of Maharashtra argued they had been operating in the country since 1992.
Advert
Well, this subsequently proved crucial as it was before the multinational juggernaut that is Burger King Corp began operating in India.
While Burger King Corporation was founded in 1953 as Insta-Burger King and later just Burger King in 1959, it did not enter the Indian market until November 2014 with a restaurant in the capital Delhi.
A restaurant arrived in Prune the following year, meaning there were effectively two Burger King restaurants in the city.
The dispute essentially started when Burger King Corporation sent a cease and desist notice to the owners of the same name restaurant, Anahita Irani and Shapoor Irani.
However, the couple and business owners quickly replied to the mammoth corporation saying no common law rights could be applied as Burger King Corporation was not operating in India at the time of their Burger King restaurant opening.
The logos were also noticeably different, which prevented anyone from getting confused about the two.
"The defendants use a crown between the words Burger King to depict the word Burger King, whereas it appears that plaintiffs have never used it. Thus, as far as visual deception is concerned, there’s none," the owners of the OG Prune Burger King contested.
Despite their case, the Iranis changed the name of their restaurant to just Burger during the longwinded legal battle.
And an Indian court has now dismissed the suit filed by the fast-food giant, citing the year Burger King Corporation came into India as the main reason.
"Thus, in the absence of cogent evidence, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled for damages, rendition of accounts and the relief of perpetual injunction," district judge Sunil Vedpathak said.
A counter claim was made against Burger King Corporation, with Rs 2m seeking damages on the grounds that the lawsuit had hurt the reputation of their business.
However, that was quickly thrown out by the judge as they had provided 'no supporting evidence to prove the actual damages caused'.
UNILAD has reached out to Burger King for comment.
