Delhi High Court restrains fraudulent websites from using name ‘Burger King’

Read Time: 04 minutes


Burger King Corporation had approached the High Court claiming that some of the Defendants were offering fake franchises under the Burger King Trade Mark to unsuspecting persons, and duping them of large sums of money

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained fake, illegal and fraudulent websites from using the name ‘Burger King’ in an unauthorised manner.

" interim injunction is granted restraining and from in any manner using the mark/name BURGER KING or the logos extracted above, for any purpose, including for collecting moneys under the garb of issuing franchises, dealerships etc.", a single judge bench has ordered.

Justice Pratibha M Singh has further directed LLC to, with immediate effect, suspend/block the domain name thereby ensuring that the website is no longer accessible to any consumers.

"If the email address is opened by or through LLC, the said email shall also be blocked. (iv) FastDomain Inc shall, with immediate effect suspend/block the domain name thereby ensuring that the website is no longer accessible to any consumers. If any email addresses are opened through the DNR- FastDomain Inc, the said email addresses shall also be blocked...", adds the order passed on last Friday.

A suit was filed by Burger King Corporation seeking protection of its marks ‘BURGER KING’ and also the Crescent Logo Design and Hamburger Refresh Design Logo.

In August, the High Court had directed the Cyber Crime Division, Mumbai police to conduct investigation in accordance with law and take all necessary action in respect of the fraudulent activities being undertaken by various nefarious websites.

Earlier this year, Delhi High Court had dismissed a claim of invalidity against Burger King Corporation's registered trademark ‘Burger King’.

In response to a trademark infringement suit filed by Burger King Corporation in 2018, the defendants had asserted that the registered trademark of Burger King Corporation should be cancelled.

“When the defendant has sought registration of the same mark as that of the plaintiff, such a defendant is estopped from raising a question on the validity of the said mark on the ground of it is being descriptive in nature,” the court had observed.