Trademarks the Most Valuable Property in the Food Industry

Introduction : The current food industry is not defined by culinary expertise alone, but rather by the power of brand. It might be hard for a customer to recollect all ingredients used in making a particular burger or the spices added to the signature curry, but they will remember where they bought it from. This transition from product recognition to source recognition makes trademarks not just a formal procedure in the process of doing business, but one of the most valuable properties in the food and beverage sector. Here the brand, including the name, the logo, signature menu items of a restaurant, becomes an initial point of communication between a business and consumers. This aspect of reality is well demonstrated in the intellectual property environment in India.

As stated in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) Annual Report 2024-25, there have been over 5.5 lakhs of trademarks filed, representing unprecedented levels of growth in brand creation. It is noted in the report that trademarks are the most widely utilized forms of intellectual properties in business because of increased awareness about the importance of brands as strategic business assets rather than marketing tools. It can be said that the restaurant industry is probably one of the best examples of this phenomenon. Recipes, which do not necessarily fall under patent and copyright protection, have no real intellectual property protection.

This makes the development of unique and differentiated commercial identity, through restaurant name, unique menu items, logos, slogans and online presence, very important in order to create differentiation in a highly competitive marketplace. For investors and franchisees, such intangibles may constitute a significant part of the enterprise value and enable expansion into other cities while maintaining the same product. With the advent of cloud kitchens, the relevance of branding has gained even more significance. In contrast to traditional restaurants which derive their benefits based on location, ambiance or any kind of customer experience, cloud kitchens operate purely based on the strength of digital marketing and recall.

The consumer going through a long list of options on a food delivery website does not compare dishes, rather, his decision-making process may involve elements such as familiar names, recognizable brands, positive feedback and goodwill. Thus, there exists a great probability of confusion with regards to deceptively similar restaurant names and menu branding. Disputes brought before Indian courts show that the restaurant owners are turning to the sphere of trademarks law in order to protect their reputation and goodwill rather than to claim rights over food items themselves. Disputes relating to well-known restaurant chains such as Karim's and WOW! MOMO demonstrate that goodwill generated during decades of existence, investment made in brand promotion and consumer recognition represent valuable business assets which should be protected from imitation.

The Fine Line between Commonly Used Names of Dishes and Registrable Trademarks

The biggest misconception about trademarks in the food and beverages industry is that an establishment can lay claims to having trademark rights in any dish served by it solely on the grounds of its ability to cook the same food better than other establishments. This is not true because trademark law does not give protection to innovations in cuisine, but rather distinctive commercial identity. Terms such as Butter Chicken, Chicken Biryani or Cold Coffee indicate the very essence of the food product. If a restaurant could obtain exclusive trademark rights to those terms, it would be difficult for other restaurants to describe their own products truthfully. It is one of the principles set out in Trademark regulation, where such marks cannot be registered due to lack of distinctiveness or exclusive composition of descriptive indications of goods and services.

But there is an exception to this rule when a name stops being used only as a descriptive term and starts identifying a particular source of commercial activity. This is done via the doctrine of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning when consumers recognize the term as not just describing the product, but identifying a particular business. In this case, protection is granted not because of any uniqueness of the actual food product, but because of the way the identifier has become a brand. This principle can be seen from various menu products all around the world, like Big Mac, Whopper or Frappuccino.

All these terms don't describe just a hamburger or a coffee drink, but a particular business that serves it in consumers' minds. The value of the legal term here is the connection of the identifier with the commercial activity, not the recipe. Thus, the general principle of the trademark law is businesses receive no monopoly over the foods, but receive protection over their brands. The judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. emphasize the point that the commercial impression of a mark, its reputation and the chances of customer confusion will always play an important role in finding out whether or not the trademark was infringed upon or passed off. These issues have gained renewed importance with the advent of restaurant branding in which the customers often decide to buy something in a matter of seconds after logging into their websites.

In Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Nizamuddin & Anr., the Delhi High Court protected the age-old KARIM'S brand from being used under the name of KARIN'S. What was being contested here was not the Mughlai food which many places can offer but the goodwill associated with the name KARIM’S, which had been used for more than a century now. The court highlighted that it would be an unfair use of the goodwill of the party and would cause consumer confusion. 

Restaurant Wars in Court : How Indian Judges Are Valuing Food Brands

Trademark litigation in the restaurant industry is not about protecting recipe patents, rather, it is about protecting consumer faith, reputation and the commercial worth of that reputation. With India's food services industry growing by way of franchising, cloud kitchens and delivery apps, judges are finding themselves increasingly confronted with the issue of where the line between legitimate competition and goodwill theft lies. Current court rulings show that although there is no monopolization on cuisines, there can still be protection for the commercial reputation associated with a certain restaurant.

The decision highlights the rights that the owner of a reputable brand name enjoys even outside his physical establishment in case he has been investing in his reputation for a considerable period of time. Another interesting case involves WOW! MOMO Foods Pvt. Ltd., which is one of the rapidly developing quick service restaurant chains in India. With the diversification of its business through such brands as WOW! China, WOW! Chicken, and WOW! Kulfi, WOW! MOMO faced legal conflicts related to the use of similar "WOW" formative marks by its competitors.

In this case, there arises a question whether a company has a right to monopolize the use of a common expression "WOW"? Instead of a mechanical approach to resolving this question, the Delhi High Court analysed the overall branding strategy of the company. It took into account such factors as the high popularity of the chain due to hundreds of its outlets, large advertising budget, consistent use of a family of "WOW" marks and consequently, consumer confusion. The significance of the ruling is in realizing the potential of the repetitive use in different restaurants for creating a strong source identifier out of what would otherwise be just an ordinary expression.

The Delhi High Court case of Punjabi Haveli is yet another illustration of how to approach restaurant branding cases. The dispute was not about the restaurant's name but about its general brand and commercial identity, including such things as visual identity, trade dress and branding strategy. The Court agreed that consumers usually evaluate the brand of the restaurant as a whole and not through separate parts. Therefore, imitation of the overall commercial identity, even when all elements of it are different, may still be considered as infringement or passing off. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a common trend in courts' decisions. It becomes clear that courts understand that the value of a restaurant does not consist in its menu but in its reputation, which is created by branding and consumer recognition. Thus, trademark law is not used as a means of protecting the recipes but as a way of maintaining a commercial identity of a business.

Outside the Kitchen: Reasons for Why Strong Trademarks Matter to Founders, Franchisors and Investors

In most cases, investors are among the first who look at the trademark portfolio of a restaurant in order to determine whether this company is capable of growing sustainably via franchising, licensing or digital development. Having a distinctive trademark gives people the possibility of having the same experience no matter what the place of visiting the restaurant may be. Whether one visits the establishment in Delhi or Dubai, the trademark speaks for its quality, service and authenticity.  It is this consumer confidence that becomes the core of the franchise network in many cases. The financial aspect becomes really important during the process of making investments. Venture capitalists and private investors always perform IP diligence prior to making investments into the hospitality business. A restaurant that uses an unregistered or weak trademark is exposed to high legal risks such as infringement claims, costly rebranding and challenges for scaling across the country. In contrast, the use of a strong trademark increases enterprise value since it offers exclusivity over its best commercial assets.

Another aspect proving the need for trademarks is cloud kitchens. Being different from conventional restaurants, cloud kitchens do not enjoy premium locations, good architecture or the ability to create an impression on customers through personal contact. Their visibility depends mainly on their position in the search results, online ratings, delivery apps and branding. As a result, even the slightest similarity between trademarks of two competing brands may affect consumer decisions which would be unusual for the conventional restaurant market. As the restaurant business scales up using multiple outlets and technology platforms, the commercial role of the trademark becomes much more than just complying with the law. The clear point is that it is not enough to initiate trademark planning once a restaurant has become popular, but it must be an integral part of the business plan from the very beginning. Trademark clearance and registration prior to expansion are crucial factors of risk control and brand building. At the end, businesses valued highest are seldom those who have the most innovative recipes, but are those who managed to convert customer's trust into legal protection of goodwill.

Conclusion : Creating Brands, Not Simply Menus

Trademark conflicts in the food and beverages industry mirror the general trend in the changes in the competition pattern of restaurants. In an age where the decision for purchase of food products is commonly arrived at within a few seconds of browsing through food delivery portals, the reputation of the restaurant along with the name, logo, menu branding and the goodwill that goes into making it is more important for a business than the food product itself. In all these cases, it is clear that trademark law does not aim at giving monopolies in food or stifling competition, but seeks to safeguard the goodwill and reputation built through consistent use.

This is how the judiciary reinforces the fact that the true purpose of trademark laws is to ensure protection of the commercial identity of the party and not necessarily the food products themselves. For the entrepreneur, the message is equally clear that the restaurant businesses which succeed are not defined by what they serve, but by what their customers remember. A unique brand brings down marketing costs, makes franchising easier, builds investor faith and even helps expand to other cities and geographies. 

With cloud kitchens and platform food delivery growing in popularity, it is very likely that the issues related to the protection of intellectual property rights will only become more frequent in the future. With the emergence of such technologies as AI-powered search, recommendations and online ordering, the disputes regarding trademarks might start expanding their field of action from restaurant names to the trademarking of menu items, virtual identities of restaurants and digitally generated associations of consumers. This means that businesses that are prepared for this change by using distinctive branding and intellectual property protection strategies will have an advantage. In the era when reputation spreads faster than the food itself, a legally protected brand is no longer a legal question, but rather a key to success.

Author: Arihant Mishra, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Endnotes

1. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, No. 47 of 1999, §§ 9, 11, 28 and 29 (India).

2. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73.

3. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Nizamuddin & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3949.

4. WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow! Momo Café & Ors., CS (COMM) 509/2024, Delhi High Court (interim orders relating to protection of the "WOW" family of marks).

5. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), Annual Report 2024–25, Government of India, available at: https://ipindia.gov.in/storage/uploads/media/English_Annual_Report_2024-25.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2026).