In the world of global coffee chains, Starbucks stands as a powerful brand name. With thousands of outlets worldwide, its green and white logo and high-quality coffee are instantly recognizable. But in Delhi, India, a small local brand named Sardarbuksh stirred up controversy that became a major example of trademark enforcement and brand protection.
This real-life legal conflict is now a well-known case study, especially for law students, entrepreneurs, and brand managers in 2025. It explains how even the smallest detail in branding can lead to a serious trademark battle.
Background: How the Dispute Began
Starbucks entered India in 2012 through a joint venture with Tata Global Beverages, operating under the name Tata Starbucks Private Limited. It quickly became popular, especially in urban areas.
Meanwhile, in 2015, a local Delhi-based coffee chain named Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. began its journey. While the quality of its coffee wasn’t under question, what caught Starbucks’ attention was its name, font, and logo, all of which looked quite similar to Starbucks. Not only did “Sardarbuksh” sound like “Starbucks”, but it also used a circular green logo with a turbaned man at the center, resembling Starbucks’ mermaid design.
This visual and phonetic similarity became the heart of the trademark dispute.
What is Trademark Enforcement?
Trademark enforcement refers to the legal steps a company takes to stop others from using its registered name, logo, slogan, or other branding elements. It ensures that the brand is not misused or copied. Trademarks are protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in India.
Starbucks, having its trademark registered, claimed that Sardarbuksh was infringing upon its intellectual property rights, and that customers could be misled into thinking that Sardarbuksh was somehow connected to Starbucks.
The Legal Battle
In 2018, Starbucks filed a suit in the Delhi High Court, asking for an injunction to stop Sardarbuksh from using that name and logo. The court heard both sides carefully.
Starbucks’ arguments included:
- The similarity in name created confusion among customers.
- The green circular logo and design closely mirrored theirs.
- Sardarbuksh was taking unfair advantage of their goodwill.
Sardarbuksh’s defense included:
- It was a small, local brand with no intention to copy.
- “Sardar” is a common term in India and doesn’t mean they were imitating.
- Their logo had a turbaned man, not a mermaid, so it was different.
Other Legal Precedents Referenced
In trademark disputes, courts often rely on past judicial decisions to assess whether the case at hand involves deceptive similarity or passing off. In the Starbucks vs. Sardarbuksh case, one of the most important precedents referenced was:
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore (1972 AIR 1359, 1972 SCR (1) 1021)
This case is widely regarded as a cornerstone in Indian trademark law. It involved two competing products, Parle-G biscuits and a similar biscuit brand marketed by J.P. & Co. The packaging, size, color scheme, and overall layout of the competing product were strikingly similar to that of Parle-G. Though the names were not identical, Parle argued that the overall visual impression of the competitor’s packaging was enough to deceive the average consumer.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Supreme Court of India held that even if two trademarks are not identical word-for-word, if their “overall impression” is similar enough to mislead an ordinary person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, then it amounts to passing off.
The court emphasized the concept of “imperfect recollection”, meaning that consumers usually do not remember every detail of a brand or packaging. Instead, they recall the general appearance, color scheme, or name format. If another product closely resembles that recalled image, it can confuse consumers, even unintentionally which ultimately violates the legal right of the other brand.
Legal Principle Derived:
This case gave rise to a now well-established legal test:
“Two marks are said to be deceptively similar when they are so nearly resembling each other that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.”
This principle is now routinely applied in trademark infringement cases to determine whether the new mark is too close to an existing one.
How this case is Relevant to the Starbucks vs. Sardarbuksh Case
Just like in the Parle case, the Delhi High Court in the Starbucks matter considered whether Sardarbuksh’s logo, name, and overall appearance could confuse an average consumer into thinking it was somehow connected to Starbucks.
Even though the words “Starbucks” and “Sardarbuksh” are not exactly the same, both share a similar structure and phonetic rhythm, ending in “-buksh,” which is not a common suffix used in the Indian coffee market. The logo design used by Sardarbuksh was also circular, with a central figure (a Sardar instead of a mermaid), and initially used green and white colors which makes it strongly associate with Starbucks.
Applying the Parle v. J.P. & Co. precedent, the court evaluated the “likelihood of confusion” and whether the average customer might assume the two businesses were related or part of the same franchise. That reasoning played a big part in Starbucks’ favor, especially as it’s a globally known brand.
The reference to Parle Products v. J.P. & Co. Mysore and the legal principle it established on “deceptive similarity” helped strengthen Starbucks’ position. It reaffirmed that when it comes to trademarks, what matters most is the impact on the public’s perception. Even if there is no intention to copy, if the end result is customer confusion, the law will step in to protect the original brand.
This reinforces the idea that companies must be extremely cautious while choosing brand names, logos, packaging, or even color schemes, because trademark law doesn’t just protect words, it protects brand identity as a whole.
Key Legal Principles Established
The Starbucks vs. Sardarbuksh case helped clarify some important points related to brand protection:
1. Visual and Phonetic Similarity Matters
Even if a logo or name isn’t an exact copy, if it sounds or looks close enough to confuse customers, it can be considered infringement.
2. Intent Is Not Always Necessary
Even if a brand doesn’t “intend” to copy, it may still be guilty of infringement if the effect is misleading to the public.
3. Big Brands Can Enforce Rights in India
This case showed that Indian courts take the protection of global trademarks seriously, encouraging international investment and trust.
4. Trademark Rights Are Territorial
Just because a company is local doesn’t mean it can use a name that’s confusingly similar to a global brand operating in the same market.
Impact in 2025: Why This Case Still Matters
Now, in 2025, this case is still cited in courts, classrooms, and brand strategy meetings. It acts as a strong case study for:
- Entrepreneurs and start-ups planning to launch products or cafes.
- Legal advisors guiding clients on trademark registration.
- Graphic designers and marketers creating logos and packaging.
It also shows how Indian courts are strengthening trademark enforcement, which helps in building a business-friendly environment and encourages fair competition.
Today, Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co. still operates and has built its own identity after the name change. While it went through some loss and rebranding costs, it learned to grow through originality. The case taught that success based on creativity and uniqueness is more sustainable than imitation.
Brand Protection Tips from This Case
If you’re starting a business or advising one, here are some lessons from this case:
- Before deciding on a name or logo, check if similar trademarks already exist. Tools like the IP India website offer public search options.
- Protect your brand from the start. Trademark registration gives you exclusive rights to use your brand name in your field.
- Even small similarities in sound, design, or color can lead to legal trouble. Hire a legal expert to review your brand identity before launch.
- Save records of your brand creation process, design drafts, and early use in commerce. These helps prove originality in disputes.
- Even if you’re a local company, don’t assume you can avoid legal attention. Large brands actively monitor their trademarks worldwide.
Conclusion
After reviewing both arguments, the Delhi High Court ordered Sardarbuksh to change its name, and take steps to redesign the logo. To comply with the order and continue business, the company later changed its name to Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co. across its outlets.
This decision is now considered a legal precedent for trademark law in India, especially for businesses in the food and beverage industry.
The Starbucks vs. Sardarbuksh case is more than just a legal fight over coffee. It is a story of trademark enforcement, the importance of brand protection, and the value of building a business on originality. In 2025, it continues to guide new entrepreneurs and legal professionals.
Whether you’re starting a café or launching a tech company, this case reminds you to respect others’ trademarks and create your own path. Because in business, copying might bring short-term attention, but authenticity builds long-term trust and success.
