Delhi High Court
FAO(OS) (COMM)/73/2026 of NAMECHEAP INC Vs BURGER KING COMPANY LLC & ORS. on 28 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 73/2026 CM APPL. 19331/2026 CM APPL. 19336/2026 NAMECHEAP INC .....Appellant Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Binsy Susan, Mr. Akshay Sharma, Ms. Shweta Sahu, Mr. Akshay Shankar, Ms. Palak Kaushal, Ms. Deeksha Pokhriyal, Advs. versus
$~13
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
FAO(OS) (COMM) 73/2026 CM APPL. 19331/2026 CM APPL.
19336/2026
NAMECHEAP INC
.....Appellant
Through:
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Binsy Susan, Mr. Akshay
Sharma, Ms. Shweta Sahu, Mr.
Akshay Shankar, Ms. Palak Kaushal,
Ms. Deeksha Pokhriyal, Advs.
versus
BURGER KING COMPANY LLC & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Raunaq Kamath and Ms. Himani
Thareja, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 28.04.2026
1. On the last date of hearing we have passed the following order: “FAO(OS) (COMM) 73/2026 CM APPL. 19331/2026 CM APPL. 19336/2026
8. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he shall not press this appeal against the rogue domain registrants, being respondents no. 2 to 4 and 12. The submission is taken on record. Let the amended memo of parties be filed.
9. Mr. Raunaq Kamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has filed a brief statement on behalf of the said respondent, which reads as under:-
“Respondent No. 1, the Plaintiff in the suit, submits that, with all due respect and regard to the order under challenge and the steps taken therein to protect the rightholders, it has no objection if the reliefs in appeal, as sought, are granted and the appeal is disposed of qua Respondent No. 1. The relief which was sought by Respondent No.1 in the suit and which has been granted is not under challenge in the present appeal. In the circumstances, Respondent no.1 does not wish to contest this appeal. The plaintiff reserves the right to press for appropriate relief in accordance with law at the time of final disposal of the suit.”
10. In substance, the submission of Mr. Kamath is that the respondent no. 1 shall not be contesting this appeal filed by the appellant herein.
11. On this, Ms. Shweta Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant seeks some time to get instruction.
12. This issue shall be considered on the next date of hearing.
13. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the Indian Bank and the Punjab National Bank.
14. Let notice be issued to the other respondents, who are not present in Court today, through e-mode.
15. List on 28.04.2026.”
2. Today the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that he shall not contest the appeal to the extent the challenge has been made qua the directions against the appellant. He also clarifies that the respondent no. 1 shall not seek the implementation of those directions in favour of Respondent No.1 in any proceedings.
3. The submission is taken on record.
4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal be disposed of. It is ordered accordingly.
5. The pending application is also disposed of as having become infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J APRIL 28, 2026 rt