Delhi High Court Balances Trademark Rights—Lets ‘Gulshan-e-Karim’ Operate With Disclaimer, Rejects Blanket Ban on ‘Karim’

Delhi High Court Balances Trademark Rights—Lets ‘Gulshan-e-Karim’ Operate With Disclaimer, Rejects Blanket Ban on ‘Karim’

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has ruled that while the restaurant names “Karim’s” and “Gulshan-e-Karim” are deceptively similar, a complete prohibition on the latter’s use would be disproportionate. The Court permitted the Moradabad-based restaurant “Gulshan-e-Karim” to continue operations under its current name, subject to a clear disclaimer that it has no affiliation with the renowned “Karim’s” chain of restaurants in Delhi. A Division Bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul modified an injunction previously issued by the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, which had entirely restrained the use of the word “Karim.” The Court emphasized that the remedy must be “proportionate,” distinguishing between deliberate and innocent infringement.

Factual Background

“Karim’s,” operated by Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., is one of Delhi’s most iconic Mughlai restaurant chains, established in 1913 and holding multiple registered trademarks for the word “KARIM’S.”

In December 2020, the company filed a trademark infringement and passing-off suit against Mohammad Talha, the owner of “Gulshan-e-Karim,” a restaurant in Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff alleged that Talha’s use of “Karim” was misleading consumers into believing an association with the Delhi-based brand.

In January 2025, the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari granted an injunction restraining the Moradabad restaurant from using “Karim” in any form. Aggrieved, Talha approached the High Court, challenging the injunction.

Procedural Background

The appeal was heard by the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, which examined whether the injunction imposed by the Commercial Court was excessively restrictive given the local nature and intent of the defendant’s use of the name “Gulshan-e-Karim.” The Court considered whether a proportionate approach could balance the plaintiff’s trademark rights with the defendant’s right to carry on legitimate business.

Issues

1.  Whether the use of the mark “Gulshan-e-Karim” by the Moradabad restaurant infringed upon the registered trademark “Karim’s.”
2.  Whether the complete restraint on the defendant’s use of the name “Karim” was justified.
3.  Whether a disclaimer could serve as an effective measure to avoid consumer confusion while preserving proportionality in the remedy.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant: Argued that “Karim” is a common Arabic name, and its use was not intended to mislead consumers. Stated that “Gulshan-e-Karim” operates locally in Moradabad and caters to a distinct customer base. Contended that there was no deliberate attempt at passing off or taking advantage of the goodwill associated with “Karim’s.”

Respondent: Claimed ownership of the registered mark “KARIM’S,” asserting that it has acquired significant goodwill and recognition nationwide. Argued that the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar name in the restaurant business was likely to confuse consumers into believing an association or franchise relationship. Urged that continued use of “Karim” in any form would dilute the distinctiveness of their well-known mark.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that the marks “Karim’s” and “Gulshan-e-Karim” are visually and phonetically similar and operate within the same industry, increasing the potential for consumer confusion. However, it observed that the Moradabad restaurant’s conduct did not suggest deliberate infringement or bad faith. The Bench emphasized the principle of proportionality in trademark remedies, observing, “The approach of the Court, in a case of innocent infringement, cannot be the same as the approach in a case of contumacious infringement.”

It further noted that “Karim” is a common name in Arabic, and a total prohibition would be excessive. Instead, the Court found that consumer confusion could be effectively avoided through a mandatory disclaimer.

Accordingly, the Court modified the injunction to allow the use of the mark “Gulshan-e-Karim,” provided that the restaurant prominently displays a disclaimer on all signage, menus, advertisements, and online platforms stating,“This establishment has no connection with Karim’s of Delhi.” This, the Court held, would safeguard the plaintiff’s goodwill while allowing the defendant to continue legitimate business without undue hardship.

Implications

The judgment reflects the Delhi High Court’s pragmatic and balanced approach in trademark disputes, particularly where alleged infringement arises from innocent or local use rather than deliberate passing off. It reinforces that proportionality and fairness must guide equitable remedies in intellectual property cases. The decision underscores that while well-known marks deserve protection, courts should avoid imposing unnecessarily harsh restrictions that stifle fair competition or penalize good-faith operators.

In this case the appellant was represented by Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shayan Khurram, Mr. Osho Mittal, Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Mr. Rishab Aggarwal and Mr. Arafat Ali, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ridhima Goyal, Mr. Saif Uddin Khan, Mr. Mohd. Affan, Ms. Rashi Khandelwal, Ms. Divita & Ms. Rhea, Advocates.