‘Carnatic’ Trademark Row: Delhi Court Rules in Favour of Carnatic Café

District Judge Neelam Singh of Saket Court decreed the suit in favour of the Delhi-based restaurant chain Carnatic Café on October 29, 2025, and made the 2019 interim injunction permanent.

The plaintiff, Carnatic Café, claimed to have been operating restaurants and providing allied food and beverage services since January 1, 2012, and had established itself as a well-known provider of authentic South Indian cuisine across Delhi and the National Capital Region.

Represented by authorised signatory Pavan Jambagi, the plaintiff asserted that its distinct menu, ambience, and service standards had built a strong brand identity and significant goodwill.

The plaintiff further stated that it owns multiple trademark registrations for ‘Carnatic Café’ in Class 43 covering restaurant, catering, café, and related services, as well as food-related goods. These marks, the plaintiff argued, had acquired a high degree of distinctiveness through continuous and extensive use.

In December 2018, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants, Lemon Pepper Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, had opened a restaurant in Bengaluru under the name ‘CARNATIC’, allegedly to exploit the goodwill of the Carnatic Café brand. The plaintiff contended that the defendants’ mark, presentation, and online listings were deceptively similar, likely to mislead consumers into believing that the Bengaluru restaurant was affiliated with or endorsed by the plaintiff.

It was further submitted that the defendants were promoting their services across digital platforms, including Zomato, Facebook, JustDial, Dineout, and the website www.carnaticrestaurant.com. The plaintiff claimed that negative online reviews for the defendants’ restaurant could unfairly damage its own reputation, given the similarity in names.

Upon filing the suit in April 2019, the court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘CARNATIC’. Summons were issued, but the defendants failed to file their written statement within the statutory period. Their belated written statement and an accompanying application for condonation of delay were dismissed on March 5, 2020, resulting in the striking off of their defence.

During proceedings in November 2022, counsel for the defendants appeared and filed an affidavit (Ex. C-1) by the company’s Managing Director, Sunil Kumar, acknowledging compliance with the injunction and undertaking not to use the name ‘CARNATIC’ in future.

The Court noted that this admission effectively reinforced the plaintiff’s case, confirming that the defendants’ prior use of the mark was unauthorized and amounted to infringement.

Citing Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, the Court held that since the defendants had failed to contest the suit or file a valid written statement, the uncontroverted evidence and trademark registrations placed by the plaintiff established a legally sustainable claim.

The Court observed that the plaintiff had demonstrated prior and continuous use of the registered mark ‘Carnatic Café’, substantial goodwill, and clear instances of unauthorized imitation by the defendants across physical and online platforms.

The court ruled that the defendants’ conduct violated Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and constituted passing off and unfair competition.

The court permanently restrained the defendants, their directors, and agents from:

1. Using the mark ‘CARNATIC’ or any deceptively similar name or logo;

2. Operating or advertising any restaurant-related service under that name;

3. Using or retaining the domain name www.carnaticrestaurant.com, which must be transferred to the plaintiff within four weeks.

Additionally, the Court awarded ₹50,000 as damages and ₹10,000 as costs to the plaintiff, noting the need for compensatory and deterrent damages in trademark infringement matters.

Conclusively, the Court held that Carnatic Café had successfully established its statutory and common-law rights and was entitled to protection against any future infringement of its mark.