Court holds respondent's mark deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered "Sangeetha" marks despite minor spelling and design differences; protects plaintiff's goodwill and reputation pending trial
In a significant ruling on October 30, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice P.B. Balaji, granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP ("Plaintiff") restraining M/s. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg ("Respondent") from using the mark "Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant," finding it deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks featuring the name "Sangeetha."
The plaintiff, a reputed Limited Liability Partnership operating a chain of restaurants under various registered marks including "SVR Sangeetha" and "Sangeetha Veg Restaurant," claimed that the respondent's use of "Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant," notably in Tamil script where the name "Sangeetha" was identically reproduced, infringed on their intellectual property rights. Despite the respondent's arguments highlighting differences such as the addition of the prefix "Hotel," the omission of one letter "e" in English, different color schemes, and device marks (wheel and conch versus veena), the Court found these distinctions immaterial in the context of likely public deception and confusion.
The Court emphasized that the respondent's hotel located opposite the renowned Brihadeeswara Temple in Thanjavur, a city with a large influx of domestic and international visitors, could mislead customers familiar with the plaintiff's longstanding brand to assume an association or franchise relationship. The absence of a plaintiff branch in Thanjavur was held irrelevant to the question of infringement.
Drawing from established Supreme Court precedents on trademark similarity and consumer confusion, including Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, the Court applied the trinity test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated all three, justifying the grant of an interim injunction to protect its trademark rights and goodwill pending the final disposal of the suit.
The Court also dismissed procedural objections raised by the respondent regarding the particulars of complaint and compliance with affidavit requirements under Order XIX CPC, holding that such issues are to be examined at trial and not at the interlocutory stage.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary's robust stance on protecting registered trademarks against deceptive imitation, especially in the hospitality sector where brand identity plays a crucial role in consumer choice. The interim injunction ensures that the plaintiff's reputation and business interests are safeguarded while the dispute proceeds to trial.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act - Interim injunction - Infringement of registered restaurant mark "Sangeetha" - Respondent using "Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant" held deceptively similar, particularly when Tamil version identically conveyed "Sangeetha" - Difference in colour scheme, device marks, prefix/suffix, omission of one letter, and absence of plaintiff's branch at Thanjavur held immaterial - Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury found in favour of plaintiff - Interim injunction granted.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Order XIX)
