Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VI Issue IV | ISSN: 2582-8878
CASE NOTE: BURGER KING CORPORATION V. BURGER
KING PUNE (TRADEMARK DISPUTE IN INDIA)
Pranjal Srivastav, University of Lucknow
Shreya Srivastava, University of Lucknow
BACKGROUND1
The Burger King Corporation v. Burger King (Pune) case marks significant moment in Indian
Trademark Jurisprudence highlighting the complexities regarding Trademark disputes
involving global joints in small local businesses. The case commenced in 2011 when Burger
King Corporation, US based fast food corporation initiated a lawsuit against local eatery in
Pune, Maharashtra which was also operating under the name Burger King.
PARTIES INVOLVED
Plaintiff: Burger King Corporation is a global fast food chain, it was founded in 1954 .The
corporation owns over 13,000 restaurants in our hundred countries and has registered
trademarks in 122 countries which also includes India. Burger King opened its first Indian
outlet in New Delhi in the year 2014. It was represented by Pankaj Pahuja.
Defendant: The local eatery of Pune also called ‘Burger King’, run by Anahita and Shapur
Irani. It has been operating under the same name since 1992, long before the global corporation
entered the Indian market. It was represented by A.D. Sarvate, Srishti Angane, Advocate Rahul
Pardeshi.
FACTS
The Global Corporation claims ownership of the Burger King trademark thereby demanding
an injunction against the Pune restaurant for Trademark infringement as well as seeking 20
lakh in damages. The local restaurant however had been using the same name since 1992. the
1
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/maharashtra/punes-burger-king-wins-decade-old-trademark-battle-
against-global-giant/article68539558.ece
Page: 1520
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VI Issue IV | ISSN: 2582-8878
defendants counter claim seeking 20 lakh for Elizabeth harassment and intimidation by Burger
King Corporation.
KEY ISSUES
The case presented several crucial legal questions:
1. Whether Burger King Corporations Trademark rights in India were valid given the prior
use of the name by the Pune based restaurant.
2. Whether Burger King Corporation could prove entitlement to 20 lakh in damages and
if the defendants could claim similar compensation.
3. If the use of Burger King name by the local eatery caused consumer confusion
damaging the global brands reputation.
4. Whether the prior use of the name by the defendants granted them any legal protection
against the claims of Trademark infringement by the global corporation.
PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT
1. The global corporation argued that it was the rightful owner of the Burger King
Trademark.
2. Burger King Corporation has world wide recognition containing that the usage of the
name by the Pune based restaurant causes confusion.
3. The plaintiff claimed that the use of the ‘Burger King’ name by the defendants
constituted trademark infringement as well as damaging the brands goodwill.
4. Burger King Corporation demanded a permanent injection to prevent the local eatery
from using the Burger King’s name.
DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT
1. The Pune based restaurant argued that they had already been using the “Burger King”
name since the year 1992. The global chain entered the Indian market only after 22
years since the defendants eatery commenced its services.
Page: 1521
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VI Issue IV | ISSN: 2582-8878
2. There was a contention by the defendants that they had no such intentions of misleading
consumers into believing that they were part of global chain.
3. The defendants argued that their business was limited to only a particular region,
therefore, practically it poses no significance threat to the global corporation’s brand.
4. The defendants also claimed that consumers of their services were very well aware that
their establishment was not part of the global Burger King chain. This minimizes any
potential for consumer confusion.
5. The defendants argued how it would be inequitable to force them to rebrand provided
their long-standing use of the name.
6. The defendants emphasized that apart from the name no other similarities between their
restaurant and the global chain can be found.
STATUTES INVOLVED
1. The Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sec 2(1)(zb) - Definition of a Trademark
● Section 11 - Relative Grounds for Refusal of Registration
● Section 28 - Rights Conferred by Registration
● Section 29 - Infringement of Registered Trademarks
● Section 30 - Limits on Effect of Registered Trademark
● Section 134 - Jurisdiction of Courts
● Section 135 - Remedies in Cases of Infringement
● The Specific Relief Act, 1963:
● Section 36 and 37 - Injunctions.
2. The Civil Procedure Code, 190
Page: 1522
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VI Issue IV | ISSN: 2582-8878
Order XXXIX - Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders.
COURT JUDGEMENT
On August 16, 2024, District Judge Suneel Vaidpathak ruled in favor of the Pune restaurant
recognising prior use of the Burger King name by the restaurant since 1992. The court found
that the global corporation had been unsuccessful to furnish solid evidence of consumer
confusion or sort of harm to their brand due to the local restaurant use of name. The court did
not award any monetary relief to either party, citing a lack of inadequate evidence.
Judge Vaidpathak emphasized on how defendants have been using the trade name for such a
long time and the pleadings could forward by the plaintiff are entirely silent about how
customers have been confused.
SIGNIFICANCE
● Strengthening Trademark Rights: The case reinforce the significance of Trademark
registration and also the protection of “prior use” under Indian Law.
● Avoiding Consumer Confusion: The ruling showcased the compulsion of proving
consumer confusion in Trademark disputes.
● Trademark Protection and Inforcement: The precedent underscored challenges faced by
global brands regarding enforcement of Trademark rights in new markets.
● Impact on Local Businesses: The ruling highlighted the difficulties local businesses
face upon confrontation by big global corporations and significance of maintaining
equitable legal standards.
● Trademark Conflicts: The case exemplifies the complications of International
Trademark dispute resolution within local legal frameworks.
CASES MENTIONED DURING THE CASE2
2
www.livelaw.in › pdf_upload › burger-king-pune-556389
https://www.livelaw.in/gsearch?q=Burger+king+Corporation+vs+burger#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Burger%20king%20
Corporation%20vs%20 burger gsc.page=1
Page: 1523
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VI Issue IV | ISSN: 2582-8878
● Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Visakha Engineering and another.3
● AKK Nambiar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and another.4
● State Bank of Travancore Vs. M/s.Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2011 SCW
7865
● Indrapal Duwa and another Vs. Yash Garg and Company reported in (2002) AIHC 2591
(P&H High Court).6
INTRICATE BALANCE
The case has become a testament to the triumph of the underdog. The outcome of the case
illuminates the notion that persistence and prior use can hold sway in the legal realm. In the
particular case consumer confusion turned out to be a double-edged sword. The Burger King
Corporation made allegations that the local restaurant’s name will mislead customers and yet
the court emphasized that the allegations must be grounded intangible evidence. The decision
underscores the principle that assumptions alone will not suffice in legal disputes. The essential
to substantiate claims of consumers misdirection is concrete proof.
Between global brands and local businesses an intricate dance is highlighted in the case.
Serving as a cautionary tale for international players entering new markets the case reminded
them to “look before you leap”. To avoid any legal entanglements global corporations must
understand and respect the established rights of local entities. The ruling reflects the principle
that “the mighty” can be checked by “the meek” when legal principle are on the later side.
The judgment underscores the importance of prior use in IPR laws. The Pune eatery’s
continuous operation under the “Burger King” name since 1992 became a cornerstone of its
defence.
CONCLUSION
The case stands as a threat intertwining global ambition and local resilience, grounded in
3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1094802/
4
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175088/
5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119004973/
6
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b126e691cb22da6d4ec3
Page: 1524
Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume VI Issue IV | ISSN: 2582-8878
rightful claim the smallest voice can echo with authority against giants tread.
The case reminds us that legal mindscape is rather complex and nuanced, there must be
navigation with diligence and mutual respect between international giants and local businesses.
The world of commerce shall run on the principle that “success is not shaped just by power but
by adherence to the legal compliances that guide fair competitiveness”.
Page: 1525
