Published on 25th June 2025
Authored By: Kaustav Das Sharma
Sister Nivedita University
Introduction
The 13 year long legal battle between Burger King Corporation (BKC), the famous American fast-food chain, and Burger King of Pune, an independently operated restaurant in India, raises important considerations of trademark rights, territoriality, corporations’ duty to enforce intellectual property, and the doctrine of prior use in intellectual property. The issue in dispute was whether the use of the name “Burger King” by the local Pune restaurant had been an infringement of BKC’s international trademark. The Pune District Court ruling in favor of the Pune based eatery illustrates the importance of prior use in Indian trademark law and India’s important protection to local businesses that have operated with established rights long before a multinational enters their market[1].
Facts of the Case
In 2011, the legal dispute Begun when Burger King Corporation sued Anahita and Shapoor Irani who owned a restaurant bearing the name “Burger King ” in Pune. The Pune “Burger King” first began trading under the name “Burger King” in 1992, prior to Burger King’s entry into India in 2014. BKC alleged that the Pune restaurant infringed on the registered trademark it held for the name and symbol and claimed that the name “burger king” was famous and that customers could make the misassociation with the global brand. In defence, The Irani family argued that they built a reputable business aside from the “burger king brand” because they used the name “burger king” in good faith for 20+ years . They also argued that they were entitled to have used the trademark in India for 20 + years entitled them to legal protection as it related to the burger king mark and name under Indian law[2].
Key Legal Issues
In this case, several important legal issues were raised:
- Trademark Infringement: Whether the Pune restaurant’s use of the “Burger King” name infringed upon BKC’s registered trademark.
- Doctrine of Prior Use: How much the Pune restaurant’s use of the name since 1992 allows them to keep using it in India.
- Likelihood of Confusion: How likely it is that people in India could mistake the Pune restaurant for the global brand.
- Territoriality of Trademark Protection: Whether BKC’s global trademark rights should take priority over the local rights of the Pune restaurant, even though BKC hadn’t entered the Indian market when the Pune restaurant first started using the name.[3]
Judgment
In August 2024, the Pune District Court decided in favor of the Irani family. The court determined that the “Burger King” trademark was protected because the Irani’s restaurant used the name under the concept of prior use, as recognized under Indian trademark law. The court noted that the Pune restaurant had been using the name “Burger King” as early as 1992, before BKC even entered the Indian market. The court made sure to emphasize that as outlined under Section 34 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, a user can prevent a later user from the use of the trademark if they are the first to use the mark, even if the first user is a global trademark[4].
The judgement went on to state that Burger King Corporation had not proven that it had any substantial presence or notoriety in India prior to 2014. Furthermore, the court did not see evidence to support Burger King Corporations claim that customers were likely to confuse the Pune restaurant with the global brand. It denied the injunction request and dismissed the claim for damages.
Following the ruling, Burger King Corporation appealed to the Bombay High Court which granted a temporary stay on enforcing the Pune Court Order. The High Court decision did not reverse the findings of the lower court and the case was still actively being reviewed in the legal system[5].
Legal Impact and Significance
This is a landmark ruling in the sense of how it is to be interpreted and applied in territoriality laws in trademarks. The ruling also devotes the fact that there is protection from trademarks in India, and more than local use cannot be the basis upon which foreign companies can claim exclusive rights over a name already in use within the country. Prior use, which gives exclusive rights to those who have procured legal protection in the name of using that specific mark for a considerable time irrespective of the international status of that mark, thus stands affirmed by this case.[6]
This ruling would speak importantly to all the multinational corporations that are planning to extend their reach into India. They also emphasize how important it is that they carry out thorough research and ascertain that the trademarks they plan to use are not already in use by a local company. Indian trademark law, as illustrated in this case, aims to uphold as legitimate the rights of local businesses which, over the years, have built a reputation even against claims on used marks by more powerful, internationally known brands.[7]
Conclusion
The case of Burger King Corporation vs. Burger King of Pune shows important ideas in Indian trademark law, especially about where trademark rights apply and the value of using a trademark first. The Pune District Court decided that local businesses can keep their trademark rights even when big global companies come into the market. This case is important for protecting local businesses and reminds global companies to think carefully about trademark issues when entering new markets.[8]
References
[1] Burger King loses legal battle against namesake Pune eatery (Brandequity, Economic Times) https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/business-of-brands/trademark-infringement-burger-king-loses-legal-battle-against-namesake-pune-eatery/112622799#:~:text=Burger%20King%20Corporation’s%2013%2Dyear,infringement%20or%20damages%20was%20found accessed 22 April 2025.
[2] Trademark Infringement Case: Burger King Corporation vs. Burger King Pune (Sonis Vision) https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/trademark-infringement-case-burger-king-corporation-vs-burger-king-pune#:~:text=The%20legal%20dispute%20between%20Burger,property%20and%20strategic%20litigation%20practices accessed 22 April 2025.
[3] Ibid
[4] Burger King Corporation vs. Pune Eatery – Legal Implications (Lexology) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4c5d90e7-7d90-457d-9e57-33d12f0469d5#:~:text=A%20Commercial%20Court%20in%20Pune,U.S%20based%20Burger%20King%20Corporation accessed 22 April 2025.
[5] Pune Eatery’s Use of ‘Burger King’ Name (Law Chakra) https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/pune-eatery-use-burger-king-name/#:~:text=In%20July%202024%2C%20a%20Pune,in%20India%20only%20in%202006 accessed 22 April 2025.
[6] The Principle of Prior Use in Trademark Law (JP Associates) https://jpassociates.co.in/prior-use-section-34/#:~:text=The%20Court%20addressed%20the%20issue,the%20absence%20of%20local%20registration.&text=The%20principle%20of%20prior%20use%20plays%20a%20crucial%20role%20in,paramount%20in%20determining%20trademark%20ownership accessed 22 April 2025.
[7] Trademark and the Principles of Territoriality (IP Leaders) https://blog.ipleaders.in/trademark-and-principles-of-territoriality/ accessed 22 April 2025.
[8] Syed Mohideen v. S. M. Mohideen (Lexology) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d48a1dc3-276a-439a-bdee-9bb7020eb5d8#:~:text=Syed%20Mohideen%20v.,by%20another%20party%20before%20registration accessed 24 April 2025.
