Fast-fashion giant Zara sued a Delhi restaurant, Zara Tapas Bar — an apparent “David vs Goliath.” But the Delhi High Court granted Zara an interim injunction, showing that when a smaller party’s use actually affects the brand, it’s not bullying — it’s infringement.
The framing — and the reality
The “David-Goliath” trademark tussle (big company vs small) often paints the giant as a bully. But it’s frequently about protecting rights and business interests against likely losses. If the smaller party’s use is likely to affect the big company, it’s infringement, not bullying.
The dispute
Zara (the fashion brand) vs Zara Tapas Bar (a well-known restaurant in a city). Zara argued it’s an international brand using the mark since 1975, operating in India via a joint venture (Inditex Trent Retail), using the mark in India since 1986–87 and having filed applications — though its first Indian store opened only in 2010. It learned of the restaurant when the mark was advertised in April 2005 and opposed it (opposition still pending). In July 2011, the restaurant offered a coexistence agreement (not claiming classes 24/25, confining to restaurant services, using only a composite mark) — which Zara rejected.
The restaurant argued Zara came with unclean hands — not suing other Zaras in the market, and not disclosing its mark had been challenged in Europe and India — and that rejecting coexistence showed a monopolistic intent.
The court’s analysis
- Deceptive similarity / nature of use. The restaurant mostly used ZARA per se, emphasising “Zara” over the full “Zara Tapas Bar” (per its Facebook page and ads) — so deceptively similar to Zara.
- Publici juris rejected. That many entities use “Zara” doesn’t make it public right — “the Plaintiff is not expected to sue all types of infringers who may not be affecting his business,” and not acting against others doesn’t disentitle relief where otherwise entitled.
- Trans-border reputation. Considering only Zara’s pre-2003 use (since the restaurant showed use since 2003), and articles/fabrication evidence in India, the court held: “We are living in the 21st century… with widespread dissemination of information through the internet and television… Consumers in India cannot be unaware of the Plaintiff’s company and its product.”
- Delay. Rejected — Zara had corresponded for amicable resolution since February 2011 and had filed the opposition, so a 3-year delay wasn’t acquiescence.
- Suppression of facts. While full disclosure is imperative for an ex parte injunction, on a merits hearing such misstatements won’t disentitle the plaintiff.
The court granted the interim injunction.
The takeaway
Courts increasingly recognise use in India and trans-border reputation — and it’s a reminder that not suing every minor infringer doesn’t forfeit your rights against one that actually affects your business.
The takeaways
- Big-vs-small isn’t automatically bullying — it’s infringement where the smaller use affects the brand.
- You needn’t sue everyone — inaction against non-affecting users doesn’t disentitle relief.
- Emphasising the common element (ZARA per se) invites a deceptive-similarity finding.
- Trans-border reputation and pending opposition defeated the publici juris and delay defences.
Frequently asked questions
Is a big brand suing a small one always trademark bullying? No — where the smaller party’s use is likely to affect the brand and is deceptively similar, it’s infringement, as in Zara v. Zara Tapas Bar.
Does not suing every infringer forfeit my rights? No — courts hold a proprietor isn’t expected to sue all infringers who don’t affect its business, and inaction against them doesn’t disentitle relief against one that does.
Can a restaurant infringe a clothing brand’s mark? It can — if the mark is deceptively similar and the brand has reputation reaching the relevant public, as the court found for Zara.
Does delay always amount to acquiescence? No — here the delay was excused because Zara was corresponding for settlement and had filed an opposition.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999