The story of David and Goliath has been one etched into the annals of history; the parable of David, an unassuming youth vanquishing a seemingly insurmountable giant, Goliath. This was the comparison Pune-based eatery “Burger King” found itself in during the course of the last 13 years.  Before even the US Giant “Burger King”, opened shop in India, it was hounding the owners, Anahita Irani and Shapoor Irani, with bogus legal claims, ranging from trademark infringement to malafide intentions of confusing consumers. The Iranis’ struck back with their contention that they have been using the trade name for their restaurant since 1992, 14 years prior to the registration of Restaurant Trade Service by Burger King in India therefore the Corporation cannot claim any common law rights. Finally, after 13 years of back and forth, the Pune District Court ruled in favor of the local Indian Eatery, dismissing the lawsuit filed by the Burger King Corporation.

While one may find the ruling of the Indian Courts unfair as the US-based Burger King has been in operation since 1954. However, the Indian Trademark Act of 1992 rules based on facts and truth and not on how big or strong a brand is. Objectively, the Pune-based eatery has been in operation since 1992, 22 years before the MNC entered the Indian Market in 2014.

Trademarks can be of different types and categories too, they can be either a word mark, a device or a phonetic mark. A word mark is the trademark of the word and arguably, the strongest of the three. The device is usually the logo and the Phonetic mark is the pronunciation of the mark. Technically, as a Trademark Attorney, I advise my clients to go for all three or at least two, word marks and devices. But it is not necessary that one will be granted any trademark just because they have a trademark of the same in any other category.

Burger King has a distinct logo, a.k.a Device, which is famous worldwide. The Pune-based Burger King does not infringe on their Device. Being a multinational corporation (MNC) like Burger King does not grant the company the legal right to monopolize or dominate smaller businesses simply because they share a similar name. Trademark laws and fair competition regulations exist to prevent large corporations from unfairly overpowering smaller enterprises, ensuring that no entity, regardless of size, can stifle competition or misuse its influence in the marketplace. The presence of similar names alone does not justify a claim to exclusivity or give grounds to undermine local businesses.

Another argument in favor of the MNC was the fact that the Madrid Protocol was only launched in India during the 2010s. In the words of Dakota Johnson, “That’s not true, Ellen”. Sure, the Madrid Protocol, which is a simplified method of applying for trademarks globally, was only enacted during the 2010s. However, it was possible to apply for trademarks internationally prior to the Protocol. While it was definitely more of a hassle, it could easily be managed by a big corporation like Burger King. Ignorantia juris non excusat, Burger King. You cannot claim a right you failed to secure, especially when the opportunity to do so was always within your reach, had it not been for your own negligence.

CONCLUSION:

The lesson to be learnt from this whole fiasco is to secure your brand from the very start. Be it incorporation, compliance or intellectual property rights, don’t keep it for later. It is essential to cultivate a clear and strategic vision for your brand from the beginning and to monitor its growth with careful planning. This means neither underestimating nor overestimating the potential expansion of your business, but rather anticipating future needs and safeguarding your brand’s interests with the help of experienced professionals. Proactive measures can help mitigate risks and position your brand for sustained success.