In a legal clash that brings together history, culture, and commerce, the popular Indian restaurant chain Dishoom finds itself embroiled in a trademark dispute over the term ‘Ruby Murray.’ This term, steeped in 1960s cockney rhyming slang and inspired by 1950s singer Ruby Murray, has become synonymous with curry, particularly Dishoom’s famous chicken curry.
In 2019, Tariq Aziz, a London-based businessman, registered ‘Ruby Murray’ as a trademark with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Since then, Dishoom has been using the term to describe its signature ‘Chicken Ruby’ curry dish, a favourite among its patrons. The restaurant chain’s lawyers, however, argue that Aziz has never used the trademark commercially, a key principle in trademark law known as “use it or lose it.”
Dishoom’s legal team has submitted an application to the IPO to revoke Aziz’s trademark, asserting that it should be removed from the registry due to non-use. “We don’t believe the trademark has ever been used,” stated a Dishoom spokesperson. “We want to remove the monopoly on ‘Ruby Murray’ so it can be used freely by anyone when referring to curry.”
Aziz, on the other hand, contends that the name is actively in use for a food premises in Islington, North London, currently closed for refurbishment. “We have a premises in Islington called Ruby Murray. It’s closed for refurbishment at the moment, but will reopen soon,” Aziz said in response to the application.
The application, filed by Dishoom on May 15, gives Aziz until July 15 to defend his trademark. If he fails to do so, the trademark will be removed from the register, potentially allowing the term ‘Ruby Murray’ to be used freely in the culinary world.
This legal battle not only highlights the complexities of trademark law but also raises questions about the preservation and use of cultural terms. As the deadline approaches, the outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how trademark law is applied to terms with historical and cultural significance.
For businesses holding trademarks they no longer use, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of maintaining active use to protect trademark rights. “If you’re no longer using your trademark, why let it go to waste?” advises The Trademark Helpline, a service that assists with Trademark Registration and monitoring. “Consider licensing your trademark to others or competitors.”
The Trademark Helpline emphasises the importance of understanding rights and obligations related to trademarks, especially for those interested in trademarks that are not being actively used. Their services aim to help businesses navigate the complexities of trademark law to safeguard their intellectual property effectively, particularly focusing on Trademark UK issues.
As Dishoom and Aziz prepare for the next steps in this legal saga, the culinary and legal communities alike watch closely, recognising that the resolution will have broader implications for trademark use and cultural heritage.
