Veerji Malai Chaap Trademark Infringed Across Cities | Delhi High Court Grants ₹5 Lakh Damages To Restaurant Chain
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal has decreed a civil suit in favour of a food service provider seeking protection against trademark and copyright infringement, granting a summary judgment against five non-appearing defendants. The Court held that the defendants had engaged in unauthorized and deceptive use of marks identical to those of the plaintiff's established brand in the restaurant business. The judgment directed a permanent injunction against the infringing parties and awarded compensatory damages.
The Court allowed the suit under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concluding that the defendants had "no real prospect of successfully defending the claims" and that "there is no compelling reason for the recording of oral evidence." Consequently, the suit was decreed in terms of the plaintiff's main reliefs, with additional imposition of damages and costs totalling Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The plaintiff in the suit is a private limited company incorporated on 9th November 2020, engaged in the business of food and restaurant services. Before its incorporation, the business was operated as a proprietorship under the name M/s Veerji Malai Chaap Wale. The plaintiff's brand was established in 2016 and built on the inherently distinctive Punjabi term "VEERJI," which signifies a respectful address for an elder brother. The plaintiff adopted the mark VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE to distinguish its services from others in the industry.
The plaintiff has grown significantly and currently operates approximately 70 restaurant branches under the said mark across India. As per the financial records submitted in the plaint, the plaintiff recorded net sales of Rs. 3,61,39,658.69/- for the financial year 2022-23. It promotes its business through its official website and is active on several food delivery and social media platforms, including Zomato, Swiggy, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and others.
To enhance its brand visibility, the plaintiff has also engaged public figures such as actor and wrestler Mr. Vindu Dara Singh as brand ambassador. The plaintiff submitted that its substantial promotional expenditures and consistent marketing have helped the mark acquire a significant level of public recognition and goodwill.
In support of its legal claim, the plaintiff presented that it holds registered trademarks for VEERJI-formative marks, including device marks. A list of its trademark applications and registrations was provided in the plaint. The plaintiff also holds copyright registration for the artistic label associated with its business.
In September 2023, the plaintiff discovered that multiple entities were using deceptively similar or identical marks for restaurant services in various cities across India. The defendants identified in the suit were operating under similar names, including VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE and VEERE DI MALAI CHAAP & KATHI KABAB, in locations such as Bhopal, Delhi, Raipur, Haridwar, and Moradabad. These entities also maintained profiles on platforms such as Instagram and were listed on food delivery apps, prompting the plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings.
The plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice to at least one of the defendants, but no response was received. Subsequently, the suit was instituted seeking a permanent injunction and other reliefs to prevent the defendants from continuing their allegedly infringing conduct.
The Court issued summons and notices to the six named defendants in December 2023. An ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Despite being served through multiple modes, the defendants did not file written statements. Only defendant no.1 engaged in mediation with the plaintiff, resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated 22nd July 2024. The suit was decreed as against this defendant on 18th September 2024.
For the remaining defendants (no.2 to 6), their rights to file written statements were closed, and they were proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff then filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC seeking summary judgment.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the plaint had been duly verified and supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff's authorized signatory. Given that the defendants did not submit written statements or file any response, "all the averments made against them in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted." The Court further recorded: "since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid defendants in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, the same are deemed to have been admitted."
On the basis of the documents and averments, the Court held that there was no need to direct the plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence and that the plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment.
The Court recorded: "the plaintiff has been able to prove that it has been continuously and extensively rendering their services under the plaintiff's mark in India since 2016." It noted the plaintiff’s significant sales and widespread promotion, concluding that the plaintiff had established "its goodwill and reputation under the plaintiff’s mark in India."
The Court examined visual comparisons between the plaintiff’s and defendants’ marks and stated: "a bare perusal of the comparison above and the material on record shows that the defendants no.2 to 6 have adopted and are using the impugned marks, which are identical with/ similar to the plaintiff’s mark." It further noted that the impugned services were also identical.
The judgment observed: "the defendants no.2 to 6 have been taking unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff... and have deceived the unwary consumers by dishonestly adopting the impugned marks." It was also recorded that the device used by the defendants resembled the plaintiff’s copyrighted artistic work.
The Court noted that despite receiving summons, the defendants chose not to appear, participate in the proceedings, or file any communication, thereby indicating that "the defendants no.2 to 6 have no defence to put forth on merits."
Quoting from Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, the Court reiterated the purpose of Order XIII-A of the CPC: "the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner... the trial is no longer the default procedure/norm."
It further observed: "Order XIIIA... would be attracted if the Court... can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result."
The High Court held that "this is a fit case where a summary judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no.2 to 6." Accordingly, the suit was decreed in terms of reliefs sought in paragraph no.73(a) to 73(f) of the plaint.
The Court also addressed the claim for damages and costs. Referring to M/s Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed & Anr., it stated: "the defendant chooses to stay away from the court proceedings, he should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of such an evasion." It added: "Section 135 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that relief that may be granted in any suit for infringement... includes injunction and at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits."
The Court concluded: "the conduct of the defendants no.2 to 6 not only warrants but also necessitates the imposition of both costs and damages." Accordingly, damages and costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- were awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Each of the five defendants was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-.
It was further recorded: "Counsel for the plaintiff does not press for the remaining reliefs claimed in the suit." The Court directed that the decree sheet be drawn up and all pending applications be disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. S. Nithin, Advocate
Case Title: MS Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v. Yash Rai & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5834
Case Number: CS(COMM) 862/2023
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
