The Delhi High Court in the case Burger King Corporation v. Ranjan Gupta and others observed and has dismissed the claim of invalidity against Burger King Corporation (BKC)’s registered trademark ‘Burger King’.
The suit was being filed in response of the trademark infringement by the Burger King Corporation in 2018, it has been argued by the defendant that BKC’s registered trademark is liable to be cancelled. The said court also considered weather the case of the defendants on this account is “prima facie tenable”.
The bench headed by Justice Amit Bansal stated that the defendants have failed to place any material in support of their submission that the trademark ‘Burger King’ is either generic or common to trade.
It has also been stated by the court that it cannot be denied that the trademark ‘BURGER KING’ has been used by BKC since 1954 and holds registrations for it in over 122 countries including India. In the present case, the said court is of the considered view that the petition raised by the defendant with regard to the invalidity of registrations granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the trademark BURGER KING and the other formative marks, is prima facie not being tenable. Therefore, there being no such reasonable prospect of the defendants succeeding in the cancellation petitions filed by them. Thus, the said court is to frame no rules with regard to validity of the registrations of trademarks of the plaintiff is liable.
The court also noted in an order passed on 18.02.2020 that one of the defences which being raised by the defendants in their written statement is that the BKC’s registered trademark ‘Burger King’ is liable to be cancelled.
It has also been argued by the counsel for BKC that it has used the trademark ‘Burger King’ since 1954 and the mark has been acquired secondary meaning and is exclusively associated with the plaintiff. The said court also told the plaintiff has obtained registrations of the trademark ‘Burger King’ in over 122 countries.
The bench headed by Justice Bansal stated that there being ‘bona fide use’ on behalf of the plaintiff of the trademark ‘BURGER KING’ in the relevant period between August, 2009 and August, 2014 and there being no such intention on behalf of the plaintiff to abandon the trademark.
Adding to it, the court stated that it may be relevant to note that as a consequence of the preparatory work carried out by the plaintiff, In India the first BURGER KING restaurant was opened on 09.11.2014 and as on date there are more than 300 BURGER KING Restaurants in India.
