Image from here
Butter chicken is one of the most famous Indian dishes available all over India and outside. This culinary delight is now the subject of an intellectual property rights dispute before the Delhi High Court.
The INR 2 crore (USD 240,000) squabble is between the Gujrals, founders of the restaurant chain Moti Mahal (and Moti Mahal Deluxe), and the grandson of another one of the founders – Daryaganj.
The Gujrals claim that their ancestor created the curry in the 1930s by using leftover tandoori chicken in a buttery tomato gravy which then became highly popular. They have sued rival restaurant chain Daryaganj for falsely taking credit for the creation of butter chicken.
As reported, Monish Gujral, the managing director at Moti Mahal says “You cannot take away somebody’s legacy … The dish was invented when our grandfather was in Pakistan.” But rival restaurant owner/manager Daryaganj claims their ancestor was the first to whip up this dish when they opened a restaurant in Delhi.
This dispute has made its way to mainstream news both online and TV and has also sparked debates on social media.
But what exactly is this dispute about?
As of now, the legal issues involved in this case are unclear. News reports (of which there are several! here, here, here, here), do not really explain what the dispute is about. Social media debates are also unhelpful.
Is it about the exclusive right to use a trademark – “butter chicken” or the “look and feel” of a restaurant?; or the exclusive rights over a recipe – breach of confidentiality?; or false advertising – the defendant claims to be the ‘inventor of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani’; or is there an actual ‘invention’ in question – owners of both restaurants call themselves ‘inventors’ of the dish?
Whatever the issue, it seems to be ‘serious’ since the plaintiff has filed a 2,752-page plaint before the Delhi High Court demanding damages to the tune of INR 2 crore (USD 240,000).
According to Indian Express, the dispute concerns trademark rights over the dish. From the article, it appears as if two restaurants in Delhi are fighting over the exclusive right to use the word “butter chicken” for a “a decadent gravy of butter, chicken, tomatoes, cream and spices”. But this is probably not the case. Just like no one can claim exclusive rights over words like pasta, pizza and biryani for describing pasta, pizza and biryani, no one can claim exclusive rights to “butter chicken” for butter chicken. Butter chicken is a generic name for a type of chicken dish. Consumers are probably not thinking of Moti Mahal or Daryaganj when they think of butter chicken.
Some reports (here and here) suggest that the dispute may be related to false or misleading advertising. The defendant opened a restaurant named Daryaganj along with this description – ‘by the inventors of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani’. This claim has raised the hackles of the Gujrals. They claim to be the ‘true and first inventors’. But unlike patent law, where false designations of inventions are punishable, false advertising has lower standards. To succeed in an action of false advertising, not only must it be shown that the claim was false or misleading but also that it was material enough to influence purchasing decisions. Therefore, not only must it be shown that the defendant was not the first to create this dish but that this fact matters to consumers. According to some food writers “People go to restaurants to eat dishes they like and don’t really care who invented them decades ago”.
Another report seems to suggest that the trademark in question is not “butter chicken” but the “look and feel” of the restaurants and websites. Do restaurant layouts function as ‘trademarks’? This is a very contentious issue and many have argued against such expansion of trademark rights. Is confusion likely when two restaurants have very different names – Moti Mahal and Daryaganj, but similar layouts? The confusion analysis requires weighing several factors including sophistication of consumers. Is there a possibility of sponsorship or association confusion given that Daryaganj used old photographs of Moti Mahal in Peshawar on its Facebook page? What if the photos are removed?
Interestingly, there seem to be no allegations on the theft of the butter chicken recipe itself. Who will chicken out of this legal battle? Or will good sense prevail with the Delhi High Court canning this spicy mess before things boil over?