KARACHI – A consumer court has issued a notice to a coffee shop operating in Defence Housing Authority (DHA) Phase-VIII following allegations that it is unlawfully using the name of a Thailand-based café chain. The court has summoned the shop’s management to appear on October 31 to respond to the claims.
The complaint was filed by Syed Muhammad Ali Jafri through his counsel, Abdul Ahad Khan, under the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2015, before the judicial magistrate of the consumer court (South). The application names Mondo Coffee Bar, the DHA-based café, as the defendant.
According to the counsel, the café allegedly used the “trademark, design, and logo” of Thailand’s Mondo Espresso & Tea Bar to attract customers and gain financial benefit unlawfully.
After a preliminary hearing, the court directed the defendant “to appear in person, or through a pleader able to answer all relevant questions, or accompanied by someone with such knowledge, on October 31, 2025.” The summons also instructed the café to present all supporting documents and file a written statement on the hearing date.
The complaint states that the plaintiff, having heard about the popular café in DHA—initially operating under the name Mondo Espresso & Tea Bar as part of an international chain—visited it in May with a colleague, purchasing coffee under the impression that it was affiliated with the Thailand-based brand. The plaintiff later discovered, through social media, that the café allegedly “wrongfully, illegally, and without authorization” used the trademark and logo of the Phuket-based coffee chain.
Mr. Ahad submitted that the original café had confirmed via its official Instagram account that the DHA outlet had no connection with the Thailand-based brand. The defendant, he claimed, was using coffee cups, takeaway bags, and tissue papers closely resembling the original design and logo.
The counsel argued that under the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2015, the plaintiff qualifies as a consumer, the defendant as a manufacturer, and coffee as a product. He further stated that the defendant’s actions constitute “faulty and defective services” under Section 13 of the Act, as well as false and misleading representation under Section 21, amounting to unfair trade practices.
The plaintiff is seeking compensation, damages for economic loss, special damages, consequential and non-consequential relief, and a refund of the payment. A claim of Rs5 million has been made for the alleged provision of defective services and deceptive marketing practices.
