Allowed

M/S. Burnt Toast v. Ms. Riddhi Bisani

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2026COMAP/302/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a commercial appeal setting aside an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court. The Court quashed the order because it proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the respondent owned a registered trademark, which was conceded to be false. The dispute concerns passing off rather than registered rights.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the ad interim order dated 03.06.2026 restraining the appellant from using the trademark. Reserve rights regarding the application I.A No.2 for disposal after hearing parties.

M/S. Burnt Toast Vs Ms. Riddhi Bisani — Intellectual Property | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31644-DB COMAP No. 302 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. BURNT TOAST

¶11

A RETAIL STORE OPERATED BY TRENT

¶12

LIMITED AT MM COMPLEX NO. 23, 100 FEET RING ROAD BANASHANKARI, BANGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 085

¶13

TRENT LIMITED

¶14

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODY STREET FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SANKET DIGHE

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI SIVARAMAN VAIDYANATHAN, ADVOCATE SRI HEMANTH M., ADVOCATE, MS. KOENA RAYAL, ADVOCATE & SRI SHUBHAM SINGH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MS. RIDDHI BISANI PROPRIETRESS TRADING AS M/S. THE BURNT TOAST

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:31644-DB COMAP No. 302 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

HAVING OFFICE AT 3362/W AF BLOCK, 8^TH STREET 11^TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI - 600 040 TAMIL NADU

¶24

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI SURYA SENTHIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU IN I.A.NO.1 AND I.A NO.2 IN COM.OS.NO.830/2026 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A & ETC.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

Office objections are overruled.

¶31

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an

¶32

ad interim order dated 03.06.2026 [ impugned order ] passed by

¶33

the learned LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [ Commercial Court ] on I.A Nos.1 and 2 in Com.O.S No.830/2026.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:31644-DB COMAP No. 302 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

I.A No.1 was filed seeking dispensation with the requirement of the pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. On 11.06.2026, this Court had observed that there was no requirement for the respondent (plaintiff) to file the application, as an urgent interim order was sought for. Notice in the present appeal was confined to the impugned order insofar as it relates to I.A No.2 (an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908).

¶38

The learned Commercial Court had passed an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the appellant from using the trademark "Burnt Toast" in relation to clothing and apparels through online and offline modes till the next date of hearing, which is now scheduled on 29.06.2026.

¶39

A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that it proceeds on an erroneous assumption that the respondent (plaintiff) was a proprietor of a registered trademark "Burnt Toast". Concededly, the said trade mark was not registered in favour of the respondent. The respondent's case is essentially premised on 'passing off' in trademark law.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31644-DB COMAP No. 302 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the parties state that the impugned order be set aside and the parties be relegated to advance their submissions on merits of I.A No.2 before the learned Commercial Court.

¶43

Considering that the impugned order is an ad interim order

¶44

and there is no dispute that it proceeds on an erroneous assumption, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order.

¶45

However, we clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties in regard to the said application (I.A No.2 in Com.O.S No.830/2026) are reserved and the learned Commercial Court shall dispose of the said application after hearing the parties.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶49

AHB, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

M/S. Burnt Toast v. Ms. Riddhi Bisani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Burnt Toast v. Ms. Riddhi Bisani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nagaraj Vs Sri Jagadeesha G

Pawan Udapudi Industries Vs the State of Karnataka

Idfc First Bank Limited Vs Sri.T.B Chandrashekar

Sannaswamynayaka Vs Sri.K.S.Rajesha

Mr.Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, Vs Mrs. Anindita Mathur

M/S Sweet Home Constructions Vs Siddalingaiah