From Kitchen Rivalries to Legal Battlegrounds: The Epic Battle for Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani’s Ownership

This year began on a tangy note, with kitchen wars turning into a courtroom drama. Yes, you heard that right! Two culinary giants, namely Moti Mahal and Daryaganj Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. have started the year on a rough note. Both these restaurant chains share a commonality: they are both based in Delhi and specialise in renowned dishes like ButterChicken (Murgh Makhani) and Dalmakhani. Both these dishes have acquired significant popularity ever since their inception and have transcended national boundaries, putting Indian cuisine on the global map. But, this is where the similarities end.?

The kitchen wars have now culminated into a legal battle in the Delhi High Court (DHC)? which is currently trying to resolve the conflict between the two. Central to this case is the legitimate ownership of these cherished Indian culinary creations.?

Moti Mahal (plaintiffs in Rupa Gujral & Ors v Daryaganj Hospitality Private Limited & Ors CS(COMM) 26/2024), founded in the 1920s has alleged the Shark Tank India famed defendants, Daryaganj, founded in 2019 of trademark infringement and passing off based on the latter using the tagline to their registered trademark, “By the inventors of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani'' and using a picture of (i) their (former’s) grandfather (late) Mr. Kundan Lal Gujral, misrepresenting the same to be that of the latter’s predecessor (late) Mr. Kundan Lal Jaggi and; (ii) a manipulated picture of their first Moti Mahal restaurant in Peshawar (now in Pakistan) on their website. These representations, the plaintiff alleged, are misleading the public into believing that the defendant’s “Daryaganj '' restaurants have an affiliation with the Plaintiff’s first “Moti Mahal'' restaurant in Daryaganj.?

While, the former asserts complete collective and individual ownership over the establishment of the first Moti Mahal in Daryaganj, Delhi, and its respective trademark; the latter claims that the same had been co-founded by each of their predecessors namely? (late) Mr. Kundan Lal Jaggi and (late) Mr. Kundan Lal Gujral, thus warranting the use of the restaurant’s photograph on their website and suggesting that the two dishes were co-invented by the two late restaurateurs.??

The entirety of the case centres on the historical origins of the two dishes and the issue of trademark infringement and passing off. Both parties have come up with elaborate versions of how each of the two dishes came into being and how they are the rightful creators of the recipes [read them here (a) and (b)]. It is important to understand the distinction between the two actions brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants. Trademark infringement essentially is the unauthorised use of either identical or deceptively similar marks in relation to identical or similar goods or services of the registered proprietor and the remedy for the same is available under statutory law. Passing off (as defined in Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited) is an action brought under common law where one party deceives consumers into believing their goods or services are associated with another established (unregistered) brand/mark.

This seemingly simple issue is just as complex as crafting a perfectly balanced dish with a multitude of intricate flavours and textures. Both parties claim attribution to the two dishes, raising questions not only about trademark ownership but also about the origins and rights associated with the recipes themselves. At this juncture, it is imperative to understand that a trademark safeguards not the recipe itself, but rather the name or branding linked with a particular dish. This means that competitors are not precluded from using the recipe however, it does prevent them from marketing it and calling it by its given name, which is the essence of the present case.?

Unlike copyrightlaw, which categorically makes a mention of the right to attribution and integrity (moral rights) of a proprietor, trademarklaw contains no such explicit provision. It primarily deals with protecting brand names, logos, and other marks that identify the source of goods or services. Although trademark law does provide certain protections for the reputation and distinctiveness of trademarks that can be interpreted to safeguard against the dilution of goodwill and reputation, it does not encompass the same personal and reputational rights as moral rights in copyright law.

The core issue, in this case, circles back to the question of inventorship of the two dishes, thus potentially hinting at the patentability of the same which is surprisingly not even a point of consideration in the present case and hence beyond the scope of this article. Instead, the defendants have been sued for the use of the tagline "Inventors of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani”, thus preventing them from making false claims as to the origin or ownership of these renowned dishes.?

The defendants, countering the arguments of the plaintiffs, state that the suit filed by the latter is baseless, misconceived, and lacks cause of action. They further argue that the photograph of (late) Mr. Kundan Lal Gujral which the defendants claim has been misused, is not made by the plaintiffs on their Meta page but on an unrelated third party’s page called “AtoZ Kitchens”.??

In my opinion, the question as to the ownership of the recipes cannot be answered by application of trademark law, rather the DHC would have to look into the provisions of patentlaw to determine inventorship of the same and then that would in turn justify the use of the tagline by either or both the parties, depending on whether the court concludes as to the independent or joint ownership of the recipes in question. The DHC would further have to delve into any documentary evidence that substantiates the respective parties’ claims regarding the origination of the two dishes.?

To succeed in their action for infringement and passing off the plaintiffs would have to primarily prove their ownership of the two famous dishes only then would they be able to establish the unauthorised use of the tagline by the defendants. And to prove their allegations of passing off they would have to establish that their goods/services have goodwill and reputation and that false claims made by the defendants have led the former to incur loss(es). The defendants (Daryaganj) are yet to file their complete response to the plaintiff’s suit.

This leaves the fate of a culinary legacy and cultural heritage that is so uniquely intertwined with intellectualproperty law to be determined by the court’s decision thus setting a precedent for the future of disputes in the culinary world. Moreover, it leaves most IP and culinary enthusiasts with a question as to how robust our intellectualpropertylaws are in affording protection to these unconventional treasures like recipes, ensuring a fair slice of recognition for culinary innovators everywhere.?

As the courtroom drama unfolds, one can’t help but wonder if this legal battle will end with a side of extra spicy legal fees or a dollop of sweet victory for one party. Regardless, let’s hope this dispute gets resolved faster than it takes to cook a perfect batch of murgh or dal makhani. After all, in the world of culinary rivalries, time is of the essence, and we’d hate for these delicious dishes to get cold while the lawyers hash it out!

Authors: Dr. Shweta Singh & Yashna Luthra

#patents?#iprs?#intellectualproperty?#trademark?#copyright?#ipr?#innovation?#IPLeadership??#INTA #INTA2024 Ennoble IP (EIP)