Delhi HC Restrains Use of Murthal's 'Mannat Dhaba' Brand Name by Others
Delhi HC Restrains Use of Murthal's 'Mannat Dhaba' Brand Name by Others
The plaintiff told the court that its trademarks, including "Mannat Dhaba" and "Mannat", as well as the logo have been registered under the relevant law and are being used since 2008 for their dhabas and eateries at Murthal

The Delhi High Court has restrained several eateries from using the name of the famous Mannat Dhaba, located at Murthal on the Delhi-Chandigarh highway, for running their own businesses.

In an order passed on January 4, Justice Anish Dayal observed that the use of the “Mannat” brand name by other entities in an identical or deceptively similar manner infringes the exclusive proprietary rights over the trademark held by Mannat Group of Hotels Private Limited.

The court recorded that the defendants are running their premises in the names of “Manat Dhaba”, “New Mannat Dhaba”, “Sri Mannat Dhaba”, “Apna Mannat Dhaba” and so on, and some of them are now attempting to re-brand their outlets.

“An ad-interim injunction (ex-parte defendant nos.1, 3 and 4) is granted in favour of the plaintiff against each of the defendants … and they are restrained from using any mark or branding, inter alia Mannat, Manat Dhaba, Mannatt Dhaba, Shri Mannatt Dhaba, New Mannatt Dhaba, Apna Mannat Dhaba et al., and/or any other mark or trade indicia which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known and registered trademarks,” the court said.

It added that the defendants would be at liberty to approach the plaintiff’s counsel in order to settle the issue if they wish to re-brand their outlets.

The plaintiff told the court that its trademarks, including “Mannat Dhaba” and “Mannat”, as well as the logo have been registered under the relevant law and are being used since 2008 for their dhabas and eateries at Murthal.

It argued that the name has attained repute and is undoubtedly associated with the plaintiff. The court said the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction against the offending outlets.

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://tupko.com/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!