The Delhi High Court has granted Shimow Hospitality Private Limited an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining M/s Benne Delhi from using ‘BENNE’, ‘BENNE DELHI’ and identical or similar marks or names to pass off its food services as those of the plaintiff. The Court found that Shimow Hospitality claimed use of ‘benne’ for its South Indian food business from 2024, operating outlets across Mumbai and Delhi NCR. The defendant had applied for the ‘BENNE DELHI’ mark in Class 43 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis in April 2026, while its business was already listed on food-delivery platforms and social media.
The Court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury in the plaintiff’s favour. Accordingly, the restraint covers use as a trademark, trade name, corporate name, domain name, and social-media handle, and also extends to third-party advertising or marketing under those names.
Briefly, Shimow Hospitality Private Limited filed a suit against M/s Benne Delhi over the use of “BENNE” for a cloud kitchen and/or outlet serving the same cuisine. The plaintiff stated that it began operating its South Indian food business under the “benne” trademark in 2024 and had five outlets in Mumbai and Delhi NCR. It claimed that continuous use, publicity and quality control had built goodwill and given the mark a secondary meaning identifying its business. The order records that “benne” means butter in Kannada and is often used in relation to butter dosa. These claims concerning goodwill and secondary meaning, and the meaning of “benne”, were recorded.
The plaintiff stated that it discovered the defendant’s use in August 2026. It also relied on the defendant’s April 2026 trademark application in Class 43, filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, to assert that the plaintiff was the prior user. The defendant’s business was stated to be listed on food-delivery platforms and advertised on social media. The prior-user submission and platform presence were recorded.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an ex parte ad interim injunction. The Court held that the balance of convenience favoured granting protection and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the injunction were refused. These were interim findings, with protection granted until the next hearing, rather than a final determination of the parties’ rights.
Separately, the Court found that the interim relief sought was plausibly urgent and genuinely contemplated, and therefore exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court finally restrained the defendant’s use of “BENNE”, “BENNE DELHI” and identical or similar marks or names in a manner that would pass off its goods or services as those of the plaintiff.
