Supreme Court: Foreign Judgment Unenforceable in India Without Fair Opportunity to Defend  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Decide Appeal Pending Before Statutory Authority Due to Delay  ||  Supreme Court: SDO Lacks Authority to Change Land Classification under UP Zamindari Abolition Act  ||  Supreme Court: Man Not Liable For Maintenance if DNA Test Proves He is Not the Child’s Father  ||  SC: Prison Must Not Dilute Rights of Disabled Inmates; Oversight Given to High-Powered Panel  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Would Have to Recuse if Children as Central Govt Counsel is Treated as Bias  ||  Delhi HC: Fresh Tenders Allowed Despite Existing Contracts; Anticipatory Grievances Not Entertained  ||  Delhi High Court: Judges Cannot Respond Publicly; Criticism Must Be Responsible and Evidence-Based  ||  J&K&L High Court: IO Not Bound By FIR; Can Modify Offences in Final Chargesheet U/S 173 CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Brief Service Breaks Do Not Bar Ad Hoc Employees From Regularisation    

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