{"id":11434,"date":"2025-11-10T06:42:22","date_gmt":"2025-11-10T06:42:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11434"},"modified":"2025-11-16T13:44:31","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T13:44:31","slug":"evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluating Deceptive Similarity in Restaurant Branding"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"case-summary\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Summary_Mohammad_Talha_Vs_Karim_Hotels_Pvt_Ltd\"><\/span>Case Summary: Mohammad Talha Vs Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>This case started when <strong>Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.<\/strong>, a well-known restaurant chain from Old Delhi, learned in December 2020 about a restaurant named <strong>Gulshan-e-Karim<\/strong> running in Moradabad by Mohammad Talha. The word &#8216;Karim&#8217; has long been associated with the Delhi-based restaurant established in 1913 by Haji Karimuddin, whose family had been royal cooks in the Mughal Empire. With a long history and many awards, the name \u2018Karim\u2019 became famous for Mughlai cuisine. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. owns several registered trademarks for \u2018KAREEM\u2019 and &#8216;KARIM&#8217; under various classes.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Case_Summary_Mohammad_Talha_Vs_Karim_Hotels_Pvt_Ltd\" >Case Summary: Mohammad Talha Vs Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Procedural_Details\" >Procedural Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Dispute\" >Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Detailed_Reasoning\" >Detailed Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Generic_Word_Defense\" >Generic Word Defense<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Anti-Dissection_Rule_and_Acquiescence\" >Anti-Dissection Rule and Acquiescence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Court_Findings\" >Court Findings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/evaluating-deceptive-similarity-in-restaurant-branding\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>Upon finding out about the Moradabad restaurant, the company filed a lawsuit before the District Judge Commercial Court, Tis Hazari, for a permanent injunction to stop Mohammad Talha from using \u2018GULSHAN-E-KARIM\u2019 or anything similar to their marks. Appellant Talha maintained that his father had chosen this name in 1997 and started the restaurant in 2016, claiming continuous use and a Food Safety license from the Government of Uttar Pradesh. He argued that \u2018GULSHAN-E-KARIM\u2019 means \u2018Garden of God\u2019 in Urdu and further submitted that the word \u2018Karim\u2019 means \u2018generous\u2019 and is a common word, so consumers wouldn&#8217;t be confused by both restaurants.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"procedural-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Details\"><\/span>Procedural Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The lawsuit for injunction got filed in 2022, with Karim Hotels requesting an interim restraint order against Talha under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Commercial Court granted this request on 15 January 2025, restraining Talha and associates from using &#8216;KARIM&#8217; in any form. Aggrieved by this order, Talha appealed to the High Court of Delhi.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute\"><\/span>Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The main dispute is whether the use of \u2018GULSHAN-E-KARIM\u2019 by the appellant amounts to infringement of the registered \u2018KAREEM\/KARIM\u2019 trademarks of the respondent and whether such use could confuse consumers.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Appellant\u2019s Argument:<\/strong> No deceptive similarity; honest use since 1997; &#8216;Karim&#8217; is a common word; no likelihood of confusion.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Respondent\u2019s Argument:<\/strong> Prior and exclusive use of &#8216;KARIM&#8217;; ownership of multiple trademarks; consumer confusion likely due to similar cuisine and brand reputation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"detailed-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court analyzed key provisions under the <strong>Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong>, particularly Sections 28, 29, 31, and 135:<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Section<\/th>\n<th>Provision Summary<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Section 28<\/td>\n<td>Grants exclusive rights to registered proprietors of valid trademarks.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Section 29<\/td>\n<td>Defines infringement as using a similar mark for similar goods\/services causing confusion or false association.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Section 31<\/td>\n<td>Registration is prima facie evidence of validity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Section 135<\/td>\n<td>Deals with remedies for infringement, including injunctions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The respondent\u2019s trademarks predated Talha\u2019s restaurant, proving bona fide and priority use since 1913. Both establishments catered to Mughlai cuisine and targeted similar consumers.<\/p>\n<p>The Court relied on precedents:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. J.P. Co (1972) 1 SCC 618<\/em> \u2014 similarity should be judged by overall impression on an average consumer.<\/li>\n<li><em>Kaviraj Pandit Dura Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980)<\/em> \u2014 essential features of the mark determine infringement, not minor packaging differences.<\/li>\n<li><em>Pianotist Co\u2019s Application (1906 23 RPC 774)<\/em> \u2014 phonetic similarity matters in determining confusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Court held that \u2018KARIM\u2019 forms the dominant part of both marks. A consumer seeing &#8216;GULSHAN-E-KARIM&#8217; might associate it with the iconic Delhi-based &#8216;KARIM&#8217; restaurant, causing potential confusion.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"generic-argument\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Generic_Word_Defense\"><\/span>Generic Word Defense<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellant argued that \u2018Karim\u2019 is a generic term meaning \u2018generous\u2019. The Court clarified that distinctiveness depends on context: while generic in a religious sense, \u2018Karim\u2019 is distinctive in the restaurant industry due to its long-standing association with the respondent.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"anti-dissection-rule\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Anti-Dissection_Rule_and_Acquiescence\"><\/span>Anti-Dissection Rule and Acquiescence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The anti-dissection argument was rejected. Citing <em>South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc. (2015 61 PTC 231)<\/em>, the Court stated that the rule applies mainly to the plaintiff\u2019s mark, not the defendant\u2019s. Even so, &#8216;Karim&#8217; was dominant in both marks.<\/p>\n<p>The defense of acquiescence was also dismissed. No substantial proof of use by Talha before 2016 was shown. As per <em>Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004 3 SCC 90)<\/em>, mere delay doesn\u2019t defeat relief in trademark infringement cases.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"court-findings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Findings\"><\/span>Court Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>While the Commercial Court had completely restrained Talha from using the mark, the High Court considered equitable factors and the balance of convenience. It recognized that Talha\u2019s use appeared innocent and localized, and that forcing a rebrand could unfairly harm his business.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The High Court modified the lower court\u2019s order:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Talha may continue using \u2018GULSHAN-E-KARIM\u2019 only if a <strong>bold and clear disclaimer<\/strong> in English and Hindi is displayed below the name in all signages, advertisements, and online platforms.<\/li>\n<li>The disclaimer must state that the Moradabad outlet has no connection with Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and must also mention the respondent\u2019s logo and location.<\/li>\n<li>Failure to comply within six weeks would reactivate the injunction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Thus, while trademark rights of Karim Hotels are upheld, equitable relief was granted to the appellant for fair business continuity.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Mohammad Talha Vs Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Order Date<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>6 November 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>FAO COMM 82\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>2025:DHC:9713<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>High Court of Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Hon\u2019ble Judges<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h3 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Summary: Mohammad Talha Vs Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Facts This case started when Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a well-known restaurant chain from Old Delhi, learned in December 2020 about a restaurant named Gulshan-e-Karim running in Moradabad by Mohammad Talha. The word &#8216;Karim&#8217; has long been associated with the Delhi-based restaurant established in 1913 by<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-11434","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11434"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11434\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}