Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 MARCH 2019

True Brew: Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.

R. K. Dewan & Co
Explore more from R. K. Dewan & Co

In Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. & Ors., CS (COMM) 1007/2018, on August 1, 2018, the High Court of Delhi granted interim relief in favor of Starbucks, directing the defendants to use the name "Sardarji-Bakhsh" for their 20 new, upcoming outlets until the final hearing of the suit on September 27, 2018.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Mohan Dewan
Mohan Dewan
Author LinkedIn connections

INTA Bulletins Law and Practice — Asia-Pacific Subcommittee

Verifier: Sushant Singh, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court, New Delhi, Delhi, India

In Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. & Ors., CS (COMM) 1007/2018, on August 1, 2018, the High Court of Delhi granted interim relief in favor of Starbucks, directing the defendants to use the name "Sardarji-Bakhsh" for their 20 new, upcoming outlets until the final hearing of the suit on September 27, 2018. Following the hearing, it was agreed that the defendant would change the name of all of its outlets to "Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co."

The plaintiff registered the word mark STARBUCKS and the logo depicting a "crowned maiden with long hair" in India in 2001. The defendants commenced their business in 2015 naming their venture "Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co"—"Sardar" the Hindi word meaning "Commander" and "Buksh" the Hindi word meaning "Pardon." In May, 2018, the defendants incorporated

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law