Allahabad HC: Employees of Constituent Institutions are not Entitled to Central University Benefits  ||  Calcutta High Court: Juvenile Accused Eligible to Apply for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC  ||  J&K & L HC: Departmental Proceedings Not Halted by Pending Criminal Case Without Showing Prejudice  ||  Cal HC: CESTAT Appeals Abate After Resolution Plan Success; CENVAT Reversal Requires No Pre-Deposit  ||  Bom HC: SEBI Settlement Doesn’t Protect Accused from Criminal Liability in Serious Economic Offences  ||  SC Directs States to Notify Eco-Sensitive Zones Around Tiger Reserves and Regulate Tiger Safaris  ||  SC: Its 2024 Order Letting Union Review Benami Act Cases Based on 'Ganpati Dealcom' was Incorrect  ||  SC: Rejection of Income Tax Settlement Application Doesn’t Bar Assessee from Contesting Assessment  ||  SC Informed Accessibility Facilities for Visually Impaired Candidates in AIBE and CLAT Expected Soon  ||  Supreme Court: Pendency of Writ Proceedings Does Not Bar Availing Alternative Statutory Remedies    

Burger King Corporation v. Burger Place - (High Court of Delhi) (07 Sep 2015)

Commercial matters to not be kept lingering in no-contest

MANU/DE/3849/2015

Civil

The Delhi High Court allowed a trade mark suit in favour of international food chain, ‘Burger King’ despite the Defendant’s non-cooperation. Arising from the Defendant’s use of the name ‘Burger Place’ was employed in a mark that resembled closely Burger King’s logo. Whereas a verbal agreement was reached between the parties prior to institution of the suit, the Defendant backtracked on his promises to desist from using the allegedly similar logo. The Court noted that the case was unchallenged and Defendant had refused service of summons. Reiterating Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, for non-filing of written statement, the commercial nature of the suit and the Defendant’s conduct, the suit was decreed in favour of Burger King Corporation.

Relevant : Kailash vs. Nankhu & Ors. MANU/SC/0264/2005 Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0450/2005 Rule 10 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Act

Tags : TRADE MARK   SUMMONS   WRITTEN STATEMENT   EX PARTE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved