Pune’s Burger King wins 13-year legal battle against global fast-food giant in trademark dispute

The US Burger King, founded in 1954, only entered the Indian market in 2014, discovering that a restaurant under the same name had been serving locals since 2008.

Pune’s beloved Burger King has emerged victorious in a 13-year-long legal battle against the international fast-food titan, US-based Burger King Corporation. The commercial court of Pune, led by District Judge Sunil Vedpathak, dismissed the multinational’s petition, clearing the way for the local establishment to continue operating under its iconic name.

The dispute began when Burger King Corporation, which operates a vast network of 13,000 restaurants worldwide, took legal action against Anahita and Shapoor Irani, the proprietors of Pune’s Burger King outlets in Camp and Koregaon Park. The global chain sought to prevent the Pune-based restaurant from using the “Burger King” name, claiming trademark infringement and demanding damages and a permanent injunction.

Judge Vedpathak’s ruling on August 16 favoured the Irani family, stressing that Pune’s Burger King had been using the name and trademark since 1992—well before the US corporation registered its trademark in India. The court highlighted that while the international giant had not operated under the name in India for nearly 30 years, the Pune establishment had consistently served its patrons under the “Burger King” brand, making their use of the name both legal and genuine.

The US Burger King, founded in 1954, only entered the Indian market in 2014, discovering that a restaurant under the same name had been serving locals since 2008. The global firm’s lawsuit, initiated after discovering the Pune trademark application in 2008, claimed that the existence of the name in Pune was causing irreparable harm to its brand reputation.

In a dramatic twist, the Iranis countered that the lawsuit was driven by bad faith and was intended to intimidate genuine business operators. They argued that despite the name similarity, there was no substantial resemblance between the two entities beyond the name itself. The Iranis also revealed that they had endured harassment and sought Rs 20 lakh in compensation for the distress caused by the legal proceedings. However, the court found no substantial evidence to support their claims for monetary relief.