Pranav B Prem

The Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi, presided by District Judge (Commercial)-05 Neelam Singh, has permanently restrained a Bengaluru-based restaurant from using the mark “CARNATIC” or any name deceptively similar to “CARNATIC CAFÉ”, a well-known Delhi-based South Indian restaurant chain. Delivering the judgment on October 29, 2025, the Court held that the Bengaluru restaurant’s adoption of the mark constituted infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the plaintiff, Mr. Pavan Jambagi, proprietor of Carnatic Café, had successfully established his statutory and common-law rights.

Also Read: Delhi Commercial Court Dismisses ‘ME’ Trademark Suit For Concealment Of Facts, Finds Defendant Prior User Of Mark

Background

The plaintiff, who operates several restaurants under the brand Carnatic Café across Delhi-NCR since 2012, claimed that the brand has built a distinctive identity in the restaurant and catering sector, associated with authentic South Indian cuisine and consistent service quality. Carnatic Café holds registered trademarks for the word and device marks incorporating “CARNATIC CAFÉ” in Class 43, covering restaurant, café, and catering services. The plaintiff asserted that the mark has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill through extensive use, sales, and promotion over more than a decade.

In December 2018, the plaintiff discovered that Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a Bengaluru-based entity, had opened a restaurant under the name “CARNATIC” and was using the domain www.carnaticrestaurant.com for its online presence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark for identical services amounted to deliberate infringement and was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with Carnatic Café.

Earlier Proceedings

On April 24, 2019, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark. Despite being served, the defendants failed to file their written statement within the statutory period, leading to the striking off of their defence on March 5, 2020. Under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Court may pronounce judgment in favour of the plaintiff when the defendant fails to file a written statement. Relying on documentary evidence — including trademark registration certificates, proof of use, sales figures, and screenshots of the defendant’s online listings — the Court found the plaintiff’s claim legally sustainable.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that the defendants themselves had filed an affidavit (Ex. C-1) through their Managing Director Sunil Kumar, acknowledging the plaintiff’s superior rights and undertaking not to use the mark “CARNATIC” in the future. Judge Neelam Singh held that the plaintiff’s rights were well-established through registration and continuous use, and that the defendants’ conduct clearly amounted to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court further observed that the defendants’ use of the impugned mark on digital platforms such as Zomato, Facebook, JustDial, and Dineout, as well as through their domain name, compounded the risk of public confusion and damaged the goodwill of the plaintiff’s business. “The plaintiff has successfully established infringement of its registered trademark ‘CARNATIC CAFÉ’, as well as acts of passing off and unfair trade practice carried out by the defendants,” the Court held.

Order

Allowing the suit, the Court made the interim injunction absolute, thereby granting a permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents, directors, employees, franchisees, and representatives from:

• Using the mark “CARNATIC”, or any mark, logo, or domain name identical with or deceptively similar to “CARNATIC CAFÉ”, for any restaurant or allied services.

• Operating or maintaining the domain www.carnaticrestaurant.com, and directed its transfer to the plaintiff within four weeks.

Also Read: Delhi Court Discharges Ex-Coal Secretary H.C. Gupta & Others In Fatehpur East Coal Block Case; Finds No Evidence Of Misconduct Or False Claims

Additionally, the Court awarded ₹50,000 as damages and ₹10,000 as costs to Carnatic Café, covering litigation expenses.

Cause Title: Mr. Pavan Jambagi v Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Case No: CS (COMM)- 290/2019

Coram: Neelam Singh [District Judge (Commercial)-05]