Supreme Court Allows Pune Eatery To Use Burger King for Now

SN Thyagarajan (Bar and Bench) 07 March 2025

Economy & Nation

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a recent order of the Bombay High Court restraining a Pune-based restaurant from using the name 'Burger King'. (Anahita Irani v. Burger King.)

The stay means that the Pune eatery can continue to operate under the name until the matter is decided by the High Court.

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said, "The impugned order shall remain stayed. However, the Bombay High Court can continue to hear the appeal."

The Bombay High Court had stayed a Pune court's order which dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by United States (US) fast-food giant Burger King Corporation against a Pune-based burger joint of the same name.

The dispute revolves around Burger King Corporation, which entered the Indian market in 2014, and a Pune-based restaurant that has been using the "Burger King" name since 2008.

The US fast-food giant argued that the local eatery’s use of the name harmed its brand reputation. Burger King thus sought a permanent injunction to stop it from using the trademark.

In July 2024, a Pune court ruled in favour of the local restaurant, citing its prior use of the name. The court noted that the Pune establishment had been operating since the early 1990s, while Burger King Corporation only registered its trademark for restaurant services in India in 2006. Declaring the Pune restaurant a "prior and honest user" of the name, the court dismissed the US company’s suit.

Burger King challenged this decision in the Bombay High Court, contending that it had registered the trademark in India as early as 1979, even though it entered the market much later. Meanwhile, the local restaurant’s legal team argued that it had been using the name since 1992, well before the US chain launched in India.

The owner of the Pune eatery was represented by Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and K Parameshwar, assisted by Advocates Abhijit Sarwate and Anand Dilip Landge. They argued that Pune joint had been using the mark much prior to the US corporation's entry to India. They further contended that the US corporation was 'squatting' on their mark, citing that Burger King had only applied for registration of the mark for paper products and not restaurants.

It was also argued that granting an interim stay against a decree of a trial court would have ripple effects as it would take a significantly long time for the appeal to be decided.

Advocate Raunaq Kamath, who appeared for the US corporation, argued that the appeal was progressing fast in the Bombay High Court. Thus, there was no case for staying the High Court's order, he said. He also contended that operating another restaurant under the Burger King name would create confusion in the minds of the people.

The Court, however, granted relief to the Indian joint, noting that it only had two joints in Pune while Burger King is a global corporation with multiple outlets. The Court also noted that an interim stay against the decree of a trial court could affect the party suffering the stay adversely. It thus stayed the High Court's order.

Courtesy: Bar & Bench

Comments