This article is written by Varsha Appaiah during her internship with Le Droit India.
Facts and Backgrounds:
Case Since July 2013, Mr. Pink Pvt Ltd, the owner of the “BURGER SINGH” (also known as “MOMO-SHOMO”) brand, has expanded its operations across the country. It reportedly had more than 178 locations throughout India by May 2025. The mark has significant goodwill and is registered.
The business signed a five-year franchise agreement with an outlet operator in Patna in February 2023, allowing the operator to use the brand name and logo until it was unilaterally terminated on May 26, 2025, for alleged serious violations that included serving expired food, not paying for raw materials, and turning off operational CCTV monitoring.
Court Cases:
- Despite having no active agreement, the franchisee continued to use the name “BURGER SINGH” after being fired, distributing signs and promotional materials that bore the trademark.
- Tipping Mr. Pink petitioned for protection against trademark infringement and temporary relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court’s Decision:
- Tipping Mr. Pink had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing-off, according to Hon. Justice Jyoti Singh, with a clear risk of irreversible harm to its goodwill and reputation. The convenience factor also supported providing relief right away.
- In order to prevent the respondent from using “BURGER SINGH” or any confusingly similar mark for its goods or services until the next court date, the Court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
- A Local Commissioner was also appointed by the Court to examine the Patna outlet’s grounds and confiscate any materials that violated the law (signs, catalogues, manuals, letterheads, hoardings, etc.). Police assistance could be sought if necessary, and the report was to be submitted in about two weeks.
Legal Importance:
The case reaffirms that the Trade Marks Act of 1999 and common law passing-off principles make it actionable to use a registered trademark after it has been terminated without permission.
It emphasises important ideas:
- A combination of statute (Section 29, Section 134) and arbitration mechanism can deliver swift interim relief in franchise‑based breaches .
- Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, courts can call upon local commissioners to conduct a search and seizure of infringing material. They can even enter a location with police assistance in order to preserve evidence.
Useful Lessons:
- Clear contractual provisions pertaining to post-termination obligations, particularly those pertaining to brand usage and quality compliance, should be ensured by franchisors.
- Franchisees must carefully follow the terms; failure to do so, even after termination, may result in immediate court orders and the confiscation of branded goods.
- The ruling indicates that brand identity misuse will not be tolerated, particularly in cases where consumers are confused and damage to one’s reputation are at risk.
In summary:
The recent decision in favour of “Burger Singh” by the Delhi High Court highlights the judiciary’s resolute position on defending intellectual property rights, especially in the rapidly expanding food and beverage industry. The court has upheld the legal sanctity of trademarks and the significance of contractual compliance in franchise agreements by prohibiting franchisees from using the brand without authorisation. This ruling establishes an important precedent and makes it abundantly evident that consumer trust and brand identity are valuable assets deserving of strong legal protection.
