Burger King Corporation v. Swapnil Patil & Ors.

CS(COMM) 303/2022

In a significant move protecting its brand integrity, Burger King Corporation successfully secured an ad interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that defendants were attempting to circumvent previous orders by opening new bank accounts and registering highly similar domain names (www.burgerkingfranchise.co.in). Consequently, the court ordered the immediate suspension of these domains, freezing the associated bank accounts, and mandating the takedown of all infringing online listings.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 303/2022
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Burger King Corporation vs Swapnil Patil & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 613/2022

Kent Ro Systems LimitedvsKent Cables Private Limited

The Delhi High Court allowed Kent Ro Systems Limited to seek exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of their trademark infringement and passing off claims against Kent Cables Private Limited. The court noted that Kent's 'KENT' mark is a registered and well-known trademark in relation to water purifiers. Consequently, the plaint was formally registered as a suit, and the matter proceeded toward filing written statements and considering an interim injunction.

patent(T)CMA(TM)/177/2023

M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. LimitedvsM/s. Seasco Dae Jong Bldg & The Registrar of Trade Marks

M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier opposition order related to a trademark application in Class 9. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Madras High Court accepted the memo of withdrawal and consequently dismissed the appeal without passing any orders regarding costs.

patentCS(COMM) 91/2024, I.A. 2223/2024

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.vsMohan Kumar Kotana

The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs (Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.) an interim permanent injunction in their suit against Mohan Kumar Kotana. The case involves alleged infringement of Tata's intellectual property rights related to its mineral water products, 'TATA COPPER+' and 'TATA WATER PLUS'. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing goods and materials, and demand disclosure of sales records, significantly advancing the plaintiffs' claim for protection against IP misuse.

patentMAT 1680 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2022

Kanishk SinhavsState Of West Bengal & Ors.

Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2024, I.A. 32967/2024-Stay; C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 91/2024, I.A. 33317/2024-Stay

Ms Allanasons Private LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the matter concerning Ms Allanasons Private Limited versus The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. This interim order scheduled both associated commercial IP disputes (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2024 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 91/2024) for a hearing on August 29, 2025. The court's directive indicates the ongoing procedural progression of these trademark matters.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call