Butter, Branding and Boundaries: Legal Takeaways from the Benne Delhi Trademark Dispute

By Huda Jafri

Can a word that means “butter” in Kannada become the identity of a restaurant brand? And can another food business use the same name simply because it describes a familiar culinary product? The Delhi High Court’s recent order in the Benne Delhi trademark dispute brings these questions into focus, highlighting the tension between a common food-related term and the goodwill a business may build around it.

In Shimow Hospitality Private Limited v. M/s Benne Delhi through its Proprietor,[1] the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Shimow Hospitality Private Limited, the company behind the “benne” chain of South Indian quick-service outlets. By an order dated 16 October 2026, Hon’ble Justice Vikas Mahajan restrained the defendant from using “BENNE’, “BENNE DELHI”, the “BENNE DELHI” logo, or any identical or similar mark so as to pass off its services as those of the plaintiff. The restraint operates until the next date of hearing.

The order is noteworthy because the plaintiff’s marks are not yet registered. The dispute therefore brings passing off, prior use and acquired goodwill to the forefront, while leaving open an important question: how far can a business claim exclusivity over a word commonly associated with a food product?

The Plaintiff’s Case: From a Bengaluru-Inspired Concept to a Growing Restaurant Brand

Shimow Hospitality Private Limited was originally constituted as Shimow Foods LLP before being incorporated as a private limited company. By a deed dated 13 July 2026, the LLP assigned its rights in the mark to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff stated that it conceptualised the “benne” brand in 2023-24, drawing inspiration from the Darshini concept and culture that is particularly dominant in Bengaluru. The word benne means butter in Kannada and is often used by restaurants as a menu item for butter dosa.

The plaintiff opened its first outlet in Bandra, Mumbai, in April 2024. It now operates five outlets, three in Mumbai and two in Delhi NCR, under the tagline “HERITAGE BANGALORE DOSA”.

To demonstrate the goodwill and reputation acquired by the brand, the plaintiff relied on its business growth and public visibility. Its revenue increased from ₹4,28,44,302 in FY 2024-25 to ₹20,24,39,545 in FY 2025-26. It also relied on media coverage and celebrity visits to its outlets.

On this basis, the plaintiff contended that “benne” had acquired a secondary meaning, so that its use as a trademark is associated with the plaintiff’s business. It further claimed that its “benne” logo is an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and that it owns the copyright in it.

The Registration Position

At the time of the order, none of the plaintiff’s marks had been registered. The plaintiff had filed five trademark applications in Classes 9, 16, 25, 30 and 35 on 3 February 2026, claiming use since 14 April 2024, all marked ready for examination. A separate application in Class 43, covering café, catering and outlet services, had been filed on 23 July 2024 on a “proposed to be used” basis and was under opposition.

The Competing Marks

The dispute concerned the plaintiff’s “benne” marks and the defendant’s use of BENNE DELHI for a business offering identical cuisine.

Source: Order of the Delhi High Court dated 16 October 2026 in CS(COMM) 1131/2026.

The Dispute: Who Used the Mark First?

In August 2026, the plaintiff discovered through an internet search that the defendant was operating a cloud kitchen and/or outlet under the name BENNE DELHI, offering identical cuisine.

The defendant’s business was listed on food delivery platforms such as Swiggy and Magicpin and was advertised on YouTube and Instagram. A search of the Trade Marks Registry also revealed that the defendant had applied in April 2026 to register its logo in Class 43 on a

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant’s application showed it had not used the mark before April 2026, and that the plaintiff, whose use dates back to April 2024, was the prior user.

The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had adopted an identical mark for identical services in order to ride on its goodwill and reputation. It argued that an average consumer with imperfect recollection was likely to believe that the plaintiff had opened another “benne” outlet in Delhi.

The central concern was therefore not simply the similarity of the names, but the likelihood of confusion over the commercial origin of the services.

The Court’s Order

1. Exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation
   The Court exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, finding that the interim relief sought was “plausibly urgent and genuinely contemplated”. This allowed the plaintiff to seek urgent interim protection without first undergoing mediation.
2. Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction
   The Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured an ex parte ad interim order, and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the injunction were not granted.
3. Scope of the Restraint
   Until the next date of hearing, the defendant and its directors, proprietors, partners, officers, assignees and employees are restrained from using, offering services, marketing or advertising under BENNE, BENNE DELHI, the BENNE DELHI logo or any identical or similar mark, and from allowing or permitting third parties to do so. The restraint covers use as a trademark, trade name, corporate name, domain name, social media handle or in any other manner so as to pass off the defendant’s services as those of the plaintiff.

   The breadth of the order addresses not only the name used at a physical outlet, but also the online channels through which restaurant businesses reach customers.

Conclusion: When a Culinary Word Becomes a Commercial Identity

The Benne Delhi dispute illustrates a familiar challenge in the food and hospitality industry: the line between using a common culinary expression and adopting a name that consumers associate with a particular business.

The Delhi High Court’s interim order protects Shimow Hospitality at this stage despite the absence of registered trademarks, on the strength of a prima facie case built on prior use and goodwill. It does not, however, finally decide whether “benne” has acquired secondary meaning or how far the plaintiff can claim exclusivity over the term.

For restaurant founders and hospitality businesses, the lesson is clear: a brand’s legal strength comes not only from registration, but from consistent use, demonstrable goodwill and reliable evidence of the identity consumers associate with it.

Aysha Sasmin, Intern at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.

[1] Shimow Hospitality Private Limited v. M/s Benne Delhi through its Proprietor, CS(COMM) 1131/2026, High Court of Delhi, order dated 16.10.2026.