Court Rules Likelihood of Confusion Exists Between "ANNAPOORNA" and "ANNAPURNA" Marks in Food Products Despite Different Product Categories; Rejects Defendant's Plea to Vacate Injunction
In a significant ruling on trademark infringement and passing off, the Madras High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Annapurna Swadisht Limited from using the mark "ANNAPURNA" and its variants such as "ANNAPURNA SWADISHT" and "ANNAPURNA SNACKS" in connection with snacks, fryums, namkeens, and allied food products. The injunction was sought by GEF Foods India Private Limited, the plaintiff, which owns the registered trademark "ANNAPOORNA" used for spices, masalas, and allied food products.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered in March 2026 that the defendant was marketing ready-to-eat snacks under names phonetically identical to its registered mark. The plaintiff, whose predecessor has been using the mark "Sree Annapoorna" since the 1980s with registrations dating back to 2001, claimed that the defendant's use of "ANNAPURNA" marks would cause confusion among consumers, dilute the distinctiveness of its mark, and damage its goodwill and reputation built over four decades.
The defendant contested the injunction, arguing that the plaintiff's rights were limited to specific product categories under an assignment deed, that ready-to-cook spices and ready-to-eat snacks are different goods, and that "Annapurna" is a common religious name widely used in the food trade. The defendant also challenged the plaintiff's claim of urgency, asserting prior knowledge of its mark and alleging suppression of material facts. It further highlighted its extensive business operations, financial commitments, and employment of hundreds of workers, seeking modification or vacation of the injunction.
Presiding Judge Dr. A.D. Maria Clete analyzed the evidence and legal submissions comprehensively. The Court observed that while the goods differed-spices versus snacks-the similarity of the marks and the nature of the products sold through similar trade channels to the same class of ordinary consumers created a likelihood of confusion as to the commercial origin of the goods. The Court emphasized that the mere descriptive addition "SWADISHT" does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion.
Rejecting the defendant's plea based on the religious significance of the name "Annapurna," the Court held that trademark protection depends on whether the mark identifies the plaintiff's goods and whether the defendant's use is likely to cause purchasers to believe in a commercial connection. The Court further noted that the plaintiff's statutory rights were not territorially restricted, and the defendant's regional sales differences did not constitute a defense.
Addressing the defendant's contention on delay and acquiescence, the Court found that opposition proceedings and cease-and-desist notices issued by the plaintiff and its predecessor negated any claim of consent to the defendant's use. Although the plaintiff made an inaccurate statement regarding its knowledge of the defendant's use, the Court declined to vacate the injunction, instead modifying the scope to apply only to goods where a likelihood of confusion was established.
The Court balanced the hardship arguments, noting the injunction restrained only the use of the impugned mark and did not prohibit the defendant from selling goods under a non-infringing mark. Disclosure of the defendant's corporate identity on packaging was acknowledged but not considered sufficient to dispel confusion.
Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the defendant's applications seeking vacation of the interim injunction and made the injunction granted on August 5, 2026, absolute until the suit's final disposal. The decision protects the plaintiff's long-standing trademark rights while ensuring that injunction relief is appropriately tailored to prevent consumer confusion without unduly harming the defendant's business.
Bottom Line:
Trade Mark infringement - Registered mark "ANNAPOORNA" used for spices, masalas and allied food products - Defendant using phonetically identical mark "ANNAPURNA"/"ANNAPURNA SWADISHT" for snacks, fryums and namkeens - Held, mere difference between ready-to-cook and ready-to-eat goods does not rule out likelihood of confusion as to commercial origin - Delay or prior knowledge without consent does not amount to acquiescence - Ex parte injunction not liable to be vacated though statement on knowledge was inaccurate - Injunction to continue against use of impugned mark.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 29(2), 29(3), 29(4), 34, 37; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXXIX Rule 4; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A
