Pranav B Prem

A commercial court in Delhi has permanently restrained a Rampur-based restaurant from using the name “Karim's Food”, holding that it was deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of the iconic Mughlai restaurant chain Karim’s in Delhi. The court also directed payment of ₹2 lakh as punitive damages to the Delhi-based chain, which has been synonymous with Mughlai cuisine for over a century.

Also Read: Delhi Consumer Commission Orders IRCTC To Pay ₹25,000 Compensation To Passenger Served Worm-Infested Biryani On Train

District Judge (Commercial Court) Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra of Tis Hazari Courts delivered the order on October 18, 2025, in a suit filed by M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the celebrated restaurant chain Karim’s. The suit sought a permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs against a restaurant in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, operating under the name “Karim’s Food.” The court found that the Rampur establishment’s use of “Karim’s Food” was visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to the Delhi chain’s well-known marks “KARIM,” “KARIM’S,” and “KAREEM,” registered under multiple classes of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judge held that such use amounted to infringement and passing off, intended to benefit from the plaintiff’s long-standing goodwill and reputation.

According to the plaint, Karim’s was founded in 1913 by Haji Karimuddin near Jama Masjid, Delhi, and has since become one of India’s most renowned culinary landmarks. The company has registered its trademarks under various classes and invested heavily in advertising and expansion, including licensed outlets operating across India and abroad. The brand has earned several awards and recognition over the decades, establishing itself as an authority in authentic Mughlai cuisine.

In June 2024, the Delhi restaurant discovered that a restaurant named “Karim’s Food” was operating in Rampur using a nearly identical name and offering the same cuisine. A legal notice dated July 1, 2024 was sent to the Rampur outlet, demanding that it cease its infringing activities, but no response was received. Despite being served through WhatsApp and courier, the defendant did not appear before the court, leading to its defence being struck off in April 2025.

Proceeding ex parte, the court examined the evidence presented by Ziauddin, the manager of the Delhi restaurant, who proved the chain’s trademark registrations and long-standing use. After reviewing the documentary evidence, including registration certificates and promotional materials, the court observed that Karim’s had successfully established its goodwill, distinctiveness, and ownership of the mark.

The court emphasized that trademark comparison must be made from the perspective of an average consumer and not by placing the marks side by side. “If the pronunciation of both the words generate a similar phonetic effect, then the same has to be considered. For deciding so, the same has to be done from the aspect of a consumer, who does not go to the market with trademarks in his memory and just has a general impression of the name of the product, and if the prominent features of the name in his memory are similar, then he is bound to be confused,” the court observed.

Holding that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, the judge found that the Rampur restaurant had dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark with the intent to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The court further noted that although there was no evidence of direct financial loss, the unauthorized use of such a well-known mark inevitably causes harm to its reputation and goodwill. Citing decisions including Microsoft Corporation v. Rajendra Pawar & Anr. (2008) and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Chagan Bhai Patel (2009), the court underscored that punitive damages serve as equitable relief to deter violators who evade court proceedings. In line with this, the judge awarded ₹2 lakh as punitive damages to Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd..

Also Read: Barmer Consumer Commission Orders South Eastern Railway To Pay ₹35,000 Compensation For Denying Paid Bedroll To Passenger

Ultimately, the court decreed a permanent injunction restraining the Rampur restaurant, its agents, and representatives from using the mark “Karim’s Food” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the suit.

Cause Title: M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Karim's Food

Case No: CS (Comm) 51/2025

Coram: Shri. Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra