"Curry Haus" Shutdown Over Objection From "Asian Haus" And "Sushi Haus"

The use of the word “HAUS” was the essence of

the dispute between two entities in the food

catering business. The Plaintiff, Foodcraft India

Private Limited (Foodcraft), filed passing off

action before the Delhi High Court against the

Defendants, Saurabh Anand Trading & Ors (Saurabh), to

restrain them from using the word “HAUS” in relation to

the business of food delivery.

Foodcraft in support of its case contended as follows:

• Foodcraft, incorporated in the year 2012, is engaged in

  the business of delivery of Pan Asian food across Delhi

  and the National Capital Region.

• Foodcraft opened its first delivery outlet under the

  trademark “ASIAN HAUS” in the year 2012 in Delhi and

  subsequently in neighboring areas.

• They expanded their business and opened “SUSHI

  HAUS” in the year 2015, which serves Japanese cuisine.

  They are also in the process of launching other outlets/

  restaurants under HAUS formative marks such as

  DILLI HAUS and AMMA’s HAUS for north Indian and

  south Indian cuisine, respectively. The applications for

  the marks ASIAN HAUS and SUSHI HAUS are pending

  registration.

• The word HAUS is a German term and the adoption of the marks “ASIAN HAUS” and “SUSHI HAUS” in relation

  to food is completely innovative. The trademarks have

  acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation among

  the public.

• In March 2017, Foodcraft learned about the activities

  of the Defendants who were in the process of launching

  a food delivery outlet under the mark “CURRY HAUS”.

  The Defendants who are running a restaurant under the

  name of “Masala House” have deceitfully adopted the

  mark “CURRY HAUS” for their delivery service to take

  benefit of the reputation and goodwill which Foodcraft

  has acquired in the said trademarks in relation to the

  food delivery business. The cease and desist notice

  issued to the Defendants was not acted upon by them.

Saurabh/Defendants made the following submissions in

support of their case:

• The word “HAUS” is a non-distinctive part of “ASIAN

  HAUS” and “SUSHI HAUS” and a suit for passing off

  on the basis of a non-distinctive component, the word

  ‘HAUS’ which is otherwise common to the trade is not

  maintainable.

• The word “HAUS” has been used by other parties in

  India, including those in Delhi, Gurgaon, and other

  metropolitan cities of India. It is commonly used as a

  suffix or prefix to attribute that the food is from a home

  or emanating from a house kitchen.

• The words “HAUS” and “HOUSE” are phonetically

  similar, “HAUS” means “HOUSE”, and the use of

  the word “HAUS” in the restaurant business is only

  indicative that it is homemade food which is being

  served in the restaurant or provided through its delivery

  outlets.

The court after considering the pleadings, arguments, case

laws, and documents made the following observations:

• Admittedly, Foodcraft started its business under the

  trade name “ASIAN HAUS” in the year 2012 and “SUSHI

  HAUS” in the year 2015. The write-ups relating to

  healthy eating under these brand names which serve

  both Asian and Japanese cuisine reflect their popularity.

  It further evidences the reputation which the “ASIAN

  HAUS” and “SUSHI HAUS” acquired by innovation in

  relation to home delivery outlets.

• The word “HAUS” is of German origin which means

  “house” and the trade which Foodcraft is carrying on,

  i.e., supply of food through its delivery outlets, is not in

  any manner connected with the meaning of this word.

  Foodcraft has been using the word “HAUS” for its food

  delivery outlets since the year 2012, and the escalation

  of its sale figures is reflective of the popularity of its

  brand name; from one outlet initially, they have now

  expanded to five under two brand names: “ASIAN

  HAUS” and “SUSHI HAUS”. Thus, there is no doubt

  that Foodcraft has acquired a distinctive reputation and

  goodwill of its own under the said trade names “ASIAN

  HAUS” and “SUSHI HAUS”.

• The Defendants’ act in starting the outlet under the name “CURRY HAUS” was at their own risk as they were

  put on notice by Foodcraft. The Defendants’ contention

  that the word “HAUS” is a well-known terminology is

  misconceived. Foodcraft’s idea of food delivery is much

  prior in time to that of the Defendants, and the latter’s

  adoption of the word in relation to a similar line of

  business is in bad faith.

• The word “HAUS” is not generic, and a customer who

  orders online delivery of food would be confused with

  “CURRY HAUS” and would believe it to be an extension

  of the delivery outlets of “ASIAN HAUS” and “SUSHI

  HAUS”.

• The argument that Foodcraft has not acted against

  other entities using the word HAUS has no merit as it is

  the prerogative of the party to decide.

In view of the above, the court restrained the Defendants

from using the word HAUS in relation to their food delivery

business.

Disclaimer - The views expressed in this article are the personal

views of the author and are purely informative in nature.