Delhi HC restrains Kareem Dhanani from opening more restaurants with names identical to Karim’s

Karim’s in February had filed a suit alleging that Kareem Dhanani was using an identical mark ‘Kareem’s’ for his eateries and sought a permanent injunction against the alleged infringement. It was argued before the court that Karim’s founder hails from a line of ancestors, who were shahi khansamas or royal cooks in the Mughal Empire and developed a line of cuisine commonly and popularly known as Mughlai food.

“The Defendant shall also ensure that in the restaurants run by him or by his franchises, no representation is made to the customers that the Defendant is associated with the Plaintiff – KARIM/KARIM’S/KAREEM Restaurant from Jama Masjid or Delhi,” said Justice Prathiba M Singh in an order released on Monday.

The court further said that all the advertisements and promotional materials and menus, as well as promotions on social media and online platforms, shall carry a prominent disclaimer saying, “No connection with KARIM’S Jama Masjid/Delhi”. The interim stay will continue till August 8, the next date of hearing before the court.

Justice Singh in the order noted that it is admitted that Kareem adopted the mark in 2003, which is almost 90 years after Karim’s adoption. “Considering the fact that the Plaintiff is the prior user, adopter and owner of the marks “KARIM/KARIM’S/KAREEM”, the continued use of the said mark by the Defendant would result in passing off and deception,” said the bench.

However, the court said since Dhanani already runs 41 restaurants, a balance would have to be struck so as to ensure that neither party is prejudiced irreparably. Thus as an interim arrangement, it restrained Dhanani from opening any more restaurants under names identical or deceptively similar to Karim’s or Kareem’s and also asked him to publicly clarify that Kareem’s and Karim’s restaurant chains are not related.

“The Defendant shall place on record his written statement/reply by 5th July, 2022, along with copies of the franchise agreements entered into by him with his various franchisees. The Defendant shall in the reply, state as to the monthly franchise fees being earned/collected by him under the said agreements and the total such fees collected till date,” said the court further.

The court has also directed both the parties to remain present on August 8 “to explore amicable resolution.”