Delhi High Court Protects ‘BURGER SINGH’ Trademark in Franchise Violation Case

In a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner sought interim relief against the respondent from using the trademark ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any deceptively similar mark. Delhi High Court Protects ‘BURGER SINGH’ Trademark in franchise violation case by Justice Jyoti Singh who granted protection to the trademark in a franchise dispute, restraining the respondent from using the mark or any lookalike version until the next hearing.

Background

The petitioner operates multiple food outlets under the trademarks ‘BURGER SINGH’ and ‘MOMO SHOMO’. The brand ‘BURGER SINGH’ was adopted in July 2013 and has since been used continuously. In 2014, the petitioner also introduced a logo, now a key identifier across all business assets including outlets, websites, and promotional materials. At the time of filing, the petitioner claimed to be operating 178 outlets across India, gaining considerable popularity and goodwill in the food and hospitality industry due to its consistent quality and customer experience.

On February 14, 2023, the petitioner entered into a franchise agreement with the respondent, licensing the use of the ‘BURGER SINGH’ mark for five years. However, due to alleged violations of the agreement, the petitioner issued a termination notice dated May 26, 2025. Despite the termination, the respondent reportedly continued to operate under the same brand name, as uncovered through an investigation. The report suggested that the respondent carried on these activities discreetly, thereby breaching contractual terms and infringing the petitioner’s trademark rights.

Court’s Observations and Relief Granted

The Court noted that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case warranting immediate relief. It observed that there was sufficient justification to restrain the respondent from misusing the trademark. Consequently, the Court issued an interim injunction prohibiting the respondent from using ‘BURGER SINGH’ or any confusingly similar branding for its goods or services until the matter could be heard further.

Additionally, due to concerns that the respondent might destroy or hide evidence of the infringement, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner. The Commissioner was directed to visit the premises suspected of housing the infringing activities and carry out search and seizure operations. The petitioner’s representative or legal counsel was permitted to accompany the Commissioner during the inspection.

If the respondent obstructed the execution of these directions, the Commissioner was authorized to seek assistance from the local police to enforce compliance. The Commissioner was also instructed to seize any material bearing the ‘BURGER SINGH’ trademark or any deceptively similar mark—including signage, display boards, or promotional items.

All seized items were to be sealed, signed in the presence of both parties, and handed back to the respondent under superdari (custodial responsibility), requiring the respondent to produce the materials before the Court when required.

Conclusion

The Court’s interim order emphasized the importance of protecting trademark rights during the pendency of franchise-related disputes, particularly when breach of agreement and unauthorized use are evident.

Case details: [Tipping Mr. Pink (P) Ltd. v. Prabhat Ranjan, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4347, decided on 30-5-2025]