This presentation delves into the intricate legal battle between Starbucks Corporation, a titan in the global coffee industry, and Sardarbuksh Coffee Co., a burgeoning Indian coffee shop chain. The central conflict hinges on allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. Starbucks vehemently asserted that Sardarbuksh's brand elements, encompassing both the name and logo, bore a deceptive resemblance to their own meticulously registered trademarks. This purported similarity, Starbucks contended, had the potential to mislead consumers into believing an affiliation between the two companies, thereby jeopardising Starbucks' established brand identity. This case serves as a compelling illustration of the paramount importance of safeguarding brand identity through the robust framework of trademark laws. It underscores the critical necessity of meticulously considering consumer perception when crafting brand elements, emphasising the need to remain well within the legal boundaries that govern brand design. The ultimate resolution of the case reinforces the significance of vigorously enforcing trademark rights. By doing so, companies can not only preserve the integrity of their brands but also prevent the erosion of consumer trust engendered by confusion in the marketplace.

1. Starbucks Coffee v.
Sardarbuksh Coffee
Aniruddha Bamal
© All Rights Reserved

2. Plaintiff: Starbucks Corporation
- A global coffeehouse chain known for its signature beverages and
branding.
Defendant: Sardarbuksh Coffee Co. and Ors.
- An Indian coffee shop chain established in 2015, with a name and
logo resembling Starbucks.
Citation: Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. &
Ors., on August 1, 2018, CS (COMM) 1007/2018
In the Presence of:- Justice Manmohan of the Delhi High Court.
© All Rights Reserved

3. Facts of the
Case
Starbucks is a globally-known coffee company,
famous for providing coffee and coffee-related
products across the world. It registered its logo
and name under the word mark “STARBUCKS”
in India in 2001 in accordance with the
Trademark Act of 1999,
In 2015, the defendants, Sardarbuksh Coffee &
Co., commenced their business operations in
India under the name "Sardarbuksh Coffee &
Co." The defendants' business model was in the
same industry as Starbucks, involving the sale
of coffee and related products.
© All Rights Reserved

4. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. adopted a logo that featured
the face of a turban commander surrounded by a circular
black band with wavy lines on the sides. This logo was
prominently displayed in their branding and marketing
materials.
In response to Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.'s use of the
word “SARDARBUKSH” and a logo that bore similarities to
Starbucks' registered trademark, Starbucks issued a
demand letter to the defendants in 2017.
© All Rights Reserved

5. Logo of Starbucks Corp. Logo of Sardarbuksh Coffee Co.
© All Rights Reserved

6. In a response to Starbucks' demand,
Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. made only
minor alterations to their logo, primarily
changing the colour scheme to black and
yellow. Despite this alteration, the
overall design and elements of the logo
remained substantially similar to
Starbucks' trademark.
© All Rights Reserved

7. Trademark Infringement: Whether Sardarbuksh Coffee's name and logo
infringed upon Starbucks Coffee's registered trademarks.
Passing Off: Whether Sardarbuksh Coffee's actions constituted passing
off, i.e., misleading consumers into believing that their products or
services were associated with or endorsed by Starbucks Coffee.
© All Rights Reserved

8. Judgement
Initial Order (August 2018):
The Delhi High Court, under Justice Manmohan,
issued an interim order.
Sardarbuksh is required to use "Sardarji-Bakhsh
Coffee & Co." for new outlets and existing
Sardarbuksh outlets are allowed temporary use of
their current name.
Final Settlement (September 27, 2018):
Sardarbuksh agreed to rename all outlets to "Sardarji-
Bakhsh Coffee & Co.” and retained the right to sue for
trademark infringement on the term "Bakhsh" in the
future.
© All Rights Reserved

9. Section 2(1)(h) of the Trademarks Act, 1999:
“deceptively similar”.—A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to
another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive
or cause confusion;”
Section 11(1) of the Trademark Act, 1999
This section deals with grounds for refusing trademark registration. In this
case, it would be relevant to Section 11(1) which states that registration can be
refused if a trademark is identical or deceptively like an earlier registered
trademark for similar goods or services.
© All Rights Reserved

10. Citation: AIR 1953 SC 357
In this case, it was held that deceptive similarity could only be determined by
stepping into the customer’s shoes under the presumption that he is a man
with ordinary intelligence. If the customer feels confused while differentiating
between the two brands, they can be deemed deceptively similar.
© All Rights Reserved

11. Protecting Brand Identity: Explore legal aspects of trademarks to see how
companies can secure their brands.
Consumer and Similar Brands: Investigate how consumers tell similar brands
apart and how it affects their choices.
Legal Limits of Similarity: Analyze court cases on trademark infringement to
understand legal boundaries for brand design.
Enforcing Trademark Rights: Study how trademark laws are enforced and how
disputes are resolved to improve legal protection.
© All Rights Reserved

12. © All Rights Reserved