Delhi High Court · 2025-02-27
CHOTIWALA FOOD AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. vs CHOTIWALA & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- CS(COMM)-33/2023 2025:DHC:1446
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- CHOTIWALA FOOD AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
- Respondent
- CHOTIWALA & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27th February, 2025 + CS(COMM) 33/2023 and I.A. 49906/2024 CHOTIWALA FOOD AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Rahul Ajatshatru, Mr. Piyush Singhal, Ms. Ishpreet Singh, Mr. Himanshu Nehra & Mr. Chandrakant Dahiya, Advocates. versus CHOTIWALA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark and copyright of the plaintiffs, passing off, along with other ancillary reliefs. CASE SETUP IN THE PLAINT 2. Plaintiff No.1 is an Indian company having its registered office in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand and is the founder of the restaurant ‘CHOTIWALA’ at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. 3. Plaintiff no.2 is the director of the plaintiff no.1 company. However, during the pendency of the suit, the erstwhile plaintiff no.2 passed away and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 33/2023 Page 1 of 12 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:05.03.2025 13:08:42 the present plaintiffs no.2, 3 and 4 were impleaded as the legal representatives of the plaintiff no.2. 4. In 1958, the predecessor of the plaintiffs established “CHOTIWALA SHUDH GHEE BHOJANALAY” a pure vegetarian restaurant located at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand and in 1961 an original artwork was created by the plaintiffs’ predecessor for its mark depicting a “Brahmin with a bodhi and serving satvik vegetarian meal” . The said artwork was registered with the copyright office vide registration No. A- 941/64 w.e.f. 20th March 1964. 5. In the year 1983, the name of the plaintiffs’ restaurant was shortened and renamed as ‘CHOTIWALA BHOJANALAY’ and the plaintiffs adopted another co