Finding a prima facie attempt to circumvent its earlier injunction protecting the ‘KAKE-DA-HOTEL’ trademark, the Delhi High Court has directed Zomato to remove fresh infringing listings and disclose operator details to facilitate enforcement and service of proceedings. The Court found a prima facie case that certain defendants had reappeared on the Zomato platform under fresh names and URLs despite an existing injunction restraining use of marks deceptively similar to “KAKE-DA-HOTEL”.
The Court noted that newly identified restaurant listings adopted “KAKE-DA”, the key and distinctive component of the plaintiff’s trademark, for identical restaurant and food services. Accordingly, Eternal Limited (formerly Zomato Limited) was ordered to block, delist and deactivate the newly identified listings, including those allegedly created to bypass the earlier court order.
The High Court also directed Zomato to furnish available particulars of the operators, including names, contact details, e-mail addresses, postal addresses, FSSAI licence details, GSTIN/PAN information and linked bank account particulars. Since several defendants could not be served at the addresses available to the plaintiff, the Court held that disclosure of their details was necessary to enable service through e-mail, WhatsApp and other alternative modes and to ensure compliance with the injunction.
Briefly, the dispute arose in a trademark infringement suit filed by M/S KAKAS HOSPITALITY, proprietor of the well-known restaurant brand and trademark “KAKE-DA-HOTEL/KAKE-DA”, against several restaurants and food businesses alleged to be using deceptively similar names. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating under marks such as “KAKE DAA HOTEL”, “KAKA DA HOTEL”, “KAKE KA DHABA”, “KAKAS DA HOTEL” and other similar variants, and had directed the removal of specified listings from the Eternal Limited (formerly Zomato Limited) platform.
Subsequently, the plaintiff informed the Court that some of the entities whose listings had been removed had resurfaced on the Zomato platform using fresh URLs and slightly modified names, despite the subsisting injunction order. The plaintiff also discovered several new restaurant listings incorporating “Kake Da”, “Kaka Da” and similar expressions, allegedly without authorisation and in relation to the same restaurant and food delivery services.
The plaintiff further submitted that many of these listings appeared to be cloud kitchens and that it was unable to identify or locate the operators behind them. According to the plaintiff, the complete particulars of the operators, including contact details, email addresses, FSSAI licence details, GSTIN/PAN information and payment settlement particulars, were available only with Zomato and were necessary for effecting service and ensuring compliance with the Court’s earlier injunction order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia prima facie accepted the plaintiff’s contention that fresh listings had been created to circumvent the interim injunction already granted by the Court. It noted that some of the allegedly infringing listings carried the same postal addresses as the listings that had earlier been directed to be removed, indicating an attempt to continue operations under different names despite the existing restraint order.
The Court also observed that the plaintiff had made out a case for removal of the newly identified listings as well as the fresh listings created by certain defendants. It took note of the fact that the impugned listings adopted “KAKE-DA”, the essential and distinctive part of the plaintiff’s trademark, in relation to identical restaurant and food services offered on the same online platform.
Further, the Court found merit in the plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the identities of the operators behind the listings. Since service could not be effected upon some defendants because the available addresses were inaccurate, disclosure of complete particulars was considered necessary to facilitate service through alternative modes such as e-mail and WhatsApp and to ensure effective enforcement of the interim injunction.
