Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction to Moti Mahal

Case 8: Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. SRMJ Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: CS(COMM) 1115/2024
Court: Delhi High Court
Date Decided: 12 December 2024
Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Background

Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (“Moti Mahal”), a renowned restaurant chain with a legacy dating back to 1920, owns several registered trademarks, including “MOTI MAHAL,”“MOTI MAHAL GROUP,”“MOTI MAHAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES,” and “TANDOORI TRAIL.” These marks are associated with high-quality North Indian cuisine and have garnered significant goodwill both in India and internationally.

SRMJ Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (“SRMJ”) was previously a franchisee of Moti Mahal under a Franchise Agreement dated 5 October 2013, which expired on 5 October 2022. Despite the termination of the agreement, SRMJ continued to operate its restaurant business using the marks “MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL” and “MOTI MAHAL DELUX,” prompting Moti Mahal to file a suit seeking a permanent injunction against SRMJ for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices.

Legal Issues

1. Whether SRMJ’s continued use of the marks “MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL” and “MOTI MAHAL DELUX” after the termination of the franchise agreement constitutes trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Whether such use amounts to passing off and unfair trade practices, causing confusion among consumers and diluting Moti Mahal’s brand identity.
3. Whether Moti Mahal is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm pending the final adjudication of the suit.

Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiffs (Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.):

• Asserted that they are the rightful and exclusive owners of the registered trademarks in question, which have acquired immense goodwill over the years.
• Claimed that SRMJ’s continued use of the marks post-termination is unauthorized and constitutes deliberate infringement and passing off.
• Argued that SRMJ’s actions are likely to cause confusion among consumers and damage the reputation and distinctiveness of Moti Mahal’s trademarks.

Defendants (SRMJ Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.):

• At the time of the ex-parte hearing, the defendants had not filed a response.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal, restraining SRMJ and its affiliates from:

• Using the marks “MOTI MAHAL,”“MOTI MAHAL DELUX,”“MOTI MAHAL DELUX TANDOORI TRAIL,” or any other mark deceptively similar to Moti Mahal’s registered trademarks.
• Operating any restaurant or catering business under the impugned marks.
• Using any logos, signage, promotional materials, or digital content bearing the infringing marks.

The court held that Moti Mahal had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction, with the balance of convenience in its favor, and that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

• The unauthorized use of a registered trademark by an ex-franchisee post-termination of the franchise agreement constitutes infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
• Such use also amounts to passing off and unfair trade practices, leading to consumer confusion and dilution of the trademark’s distinctiveness.
• In cases where the plaintiff demonstrates a strong prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable harm, courts may grant ex-parte ad-interim injunctions to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

• Trade Marks Act, 1999: Sections 29(1), 29(2)(c), 29(4)
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
• Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 2(c), 17

Bibliography

• Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. SRMJ Business Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 1115/2024 (Delhi High Court, 12 December 2024)
• ‘Delhi High Court grants interim protection to Moti Mahal; temporarily restrains its ex-franchisee from using Moti Mahal’s registered trade marks’ (SCC Online, 19 December 2024) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/12/19/dhc-grants-interim-protection-to-moti-mahal-restrains-its-ex-franchisee-from-using-moti-mahals-registered-trade-marks/
• ‘Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Moti Mahal in Trademark Suit Against Ex-Franchisee’ (Bar & Bench, 18 December 2024) https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-grants-relief-moti-mahal-trademark-suit-ex-franchisee