Name of author: Anvita Sharma (5th Year, Jindal Global Law School)

Name of author: Vidhi Gala, (Associate, Dhruve Liladhar & Co.)

Trademarks, traditionally conceived as mere indicators of origin, have evolved into contested instruments of global commerce. In the modern marketplace, they do not simply protect consumer trust, but they often serve to entrench corporate dominance, restrict local enterprise, and blend cultural expression under the pretext of avoiding “confusion”.

In September 2025, the rare victory of a Karachi-based Cafe “Sattar Buksh” against Starbucks in a trademark dispute epitomised this clash between global corporate power and local creativity.  The authors contend that this ruling should serve as an eye-opener for Indian Courts, demonstrating how cultural and artistic expression can be integrated into trademark adjudication. The Karachi court departed from the usual trajectory of global IP litigation and sided with a local café by highlighting that its culturally embedded branding and playful irreverence were sufficient to distinguish it from the multinational giant. The ruling highlights a critical fault line in trademark law – on whether it should merely shield well-known marks from dilution or also protect creative, local adaptations from being bulldozed by expansive corporate claims. Moreover, this case invites Indian jurisprudence to reconsider the balance between safeguarding brand goodwill and allowing room for parody, satire, and local cultural adaptation, offering a model for a more nuanced and culturally sensitive approach to intellectual property law. This post provides an overview of the recent ruling, analyses global perspectives, and highlights persistent concerns in the context of Indian trademark law.

Context and Legal Position

Sattar Buksh relied on the ‘parody defense’, arguing that its brand was satire rooted in local culture, which has been around for centuries. For example, the menu blended Western and local culture.  Moreover, the original menu contained a disclaimer clarifying that it has no affiliation with Starbucks. Furthermore, it made changes to its logo in terms of colour, font, and a mustached man, as compared to the Starbucks mermaid. 

While the court held that the local café was not attempting to mislead consumers, the authors critically question whether local creativity justifies the appropriation of a globally established brand’s goodwill. As commentators have observed, the foundational purpose of trademark law is to protect the goodwill that a brand has legitimately acquired over time.  The authors argue that for a globally established brand such as Starbucks, the issue lies not in immediate consumer confusion but in the long-term dilution of the brand value. Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement mandates that members offer protection against trademark dilution. This reflects a shift away from classical justification for trademarks from consumer protection towards an emphasis on safeguarding the economic interests of brand owners.

Firstly, Sattar Buksh is clearly freeriding on the well-established commercial and customer relationships of Starbucks. In the eyes of a common man with average intelligence, such freeriding weakens the distinctiveness of the Starbucks brand, especially in an era where customer loyalty and digital visibility are critical to competitive advantage.

Secondly, Sattar Buksh’s phonetic similarity and visual imitation – particularly through a circular green logo – create a form of “blurring” by making it harder for an average consumer to identify Starbucks as a unique source.

Thirdly, the court’s complete acceptance of parody as a valid defence is not just a legal question but rather a democratic one. The authors argue that if parody is left unchecked, it functions as a form of counter-speech, allowing communities to satirize, localize, and resist the cultural hegemony of global brands. In Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog (“Chewy Vuitton”), U.S. courts recognized parody as legitimate only when expressive, non-commercial, and not damaging to the original brand’s acquired goodwill. By contrast, the Karachi judgment did not rigorously interrogate the commercial intent of Sattar Buksh, nor did it assess the potential for dilution or long-term blurring of Starbucks’ mark. This lack of doctrinal scrutiny risks incentivizing strategic appropriation under the guise of satire, undermining the predictability and integrity of trademark enforcement. Moreover, the growth of digital platforms and global marketplaces increases the risk for businesses of deceptive marks across geographical lines, which could potentially damage their reputation.

IP Battle of Starbucks in Indian Litigation

A related case, Starbucks v. SardarBuksh, illustrates how Indian Courts have typically approached such disputes. Here, despite the defendants’ use of distinct cultural markers such keep tas the turbaned commander in their logo, the Delhi High Court prioritised Starbucks’ global goodwill and applied the consumer confusion test strictly. The defendants were compelled to rebrand, while paradoxically being granted the right to police the term “Baksh” themselves. The authors contend that this outcome illustrates the manner in which trademark law is utilised to entrench monopolies.

The American coffee giant Starbucks has been uncompromising in protecting not only its corporate, but also its most aggressively marketed creations – “Frappuccino”. This creation exemplifies how inherently distinctive marks function as powerful IP assets, safeguarding brand identity and preventing dilution. However, its aggressive enforcement in India illustrates how trademarks can shift from protecting consumers to protecting investments. The authors contend that the striking part is not the vigilance itself but the sheer disproportionality of the company’s legal campaign against small cafes but whose use of the term posed no credible threat to its global dominance. The 2019 case against Jail Café exemplifies this approach. Despite the café’s limited presence, Starbucks pursued a permanent injunction as its multibillion-dollar brand was genuinely imperiled.

A similar case appeared in 2022, when a modest café in Rajasthan faced trademark infringement proceedings for listing “Frappuccino” on its menu. Later that year, the Delhi High Court in another dispute ruled in favor of Starbucks through a summary judgment under the Commercial Courts Act without requiring proof of any actual damage to its business. It is important to note that mere unauthorized use was treated as sufficient.

The authors notice that a troubling consistency emerges across these cases wherein Indian courts have taken an almost automatic, protectionist stance towards Starbucks’ intellectual property. These disputes also reveal systemic deficiencies in India’s IP regime. Reports suggest that many cafes lacked the basic awareness of trademark law, failed to conduct due diligence, or, as in the aforesaid judgements did not appear in court at all, resulting in ex parte orders that strengthened Starbucks’ position by default. These outcomes reflect the profound imbalance between resource-rich multinationals and small enterprises. The application of trademark law shifts from protecting consumers to protecting investments.

Drawing Insights from Global Perspectives

The Global treatment of trademark dilution and parody reveals the doctrinal tension between brand protection and expressive freedom. In the United States, the Lanham Act empowers famous brands to seek protection under dilution even if consumer confusion is absent. However, it simultaneously permits parody defenses if the use constitutes social commentary rather than commercial exploitation. Courts carefully weigh the commercial versus expressive content to ensure that parody does not unfairly erode the goodwill of established marks. Similarly, the European Union recognizes “blurring” and “tarnishment” as forms of dilution while allowing exceptions for artistic or cultural expression. European Courts apply a proportionality test that balances the protection of brand distinctiveness against freedom of creativity.

Road Ahead for India’s IP System and Conclusion

The authors believe that the Karachi Sattar Buksh ruling, when contrasted with Indian trademark jurisprudence, highlights a fundamental tension in the application of trademark law: the need to protect established brands and consumers versus the imperative to allow cultural and artistic expression. Indian courts have historically favored a rigid, almost mechanical enforcement of corporate rights, as seen in Starbucks v. SardarBuksh and the Frappuccino litigation, often granting relief without requiring proof of actual harm. Pakistan’s approach, on the other hand, demonstrates that courts can consider cultural context and parody as legitimate factors, allowing localized expression to coexist with established trademarks. While such an approach may raise concerns about brand dilution, it underscores the importance of balancing economic and societal interests.

The authors argue that Indian courts should adopt a more nuanced framework that balances trademark protection with artistic and cultural expression. Firstly, courts should move away from automatic deference to multinational brands and critically consider whether the alleged infringement serves as a genuine expressive or parodic purpose rather than commercial exploitation, as was observed in the Chewy Vuitton Case. This assessment could consider factors such as the degree of visual or phonetic similarity and the extent to which the work constitutes social commentary, cultural adaptation, or artistic critique. As commentators have observed, the threshold to test this should be an average consumer with imperfect recollection. Secondly, courts should apply a proportionality-based test, similar to the approach of the European Union, weighing the economic interests of a brand against the societal value of creative expression. Incorporating these principles would enable Indian courts to develop a balanced approach to trademark enforcement that protects consumers and brands while encouraging artistic expression.