SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved