Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 31 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: M/s Sangeetha Caterers And Consultants LLP, partners P. Rajagopal and P. Suresh, operating hotels/restaurants under “Sangeetha” marks in Egmore, Santhome, Guindy.
  • Respondent: M/s Grand Sangeetham Inn, proprietrix Kalavathi Sekaran Samraj, operating a lodging business at the same premises in Tiruchendur‑Adaikakalapuram.
  • The applicant seeks an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from using the name “Grand Sangeetham Inn” or any similar name that infringes the applicant’s registered trademarks and copyright.
  • Background: The respondent’s family previously ran a vegetarian restaurant “Sangeetham House of Veg.” The applicant issued a cease‑and‑desist notice, leading to suit C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No.35 of 2023, where the defendant (son of the respondent’s proprietor) agreed to rename the restaurant “Ragam House of Veg.” Subsequent contempt proceedings (Cont.P.No.3721 of 2024) were closed after compliance.
  • The respondent later opened “Grand Santeethan Inn” in April 2025, allegedly infringing the applicant’s marks. The applicant points out that the same premises are used, and that the respondent’s trademark was previously expunged by order OP(TM) No.23 of 2025 (dated 06‑11‑2025).
  • Respondent’s counsel argued that the earlier judgment does not bind the respondent as a separate legal entity and that lodging services differ from restaurant services, so no likelihood of confusion exists.
  • The court examined the affidavit of the respondent, which admitted the relationship with the earlier defendant, the use of the same premises, and the respondent’s senior‑citizen status with health issues, but found no denial of the factual overlap.

Final Outcome

  • The court held that the respondent’s use of “Grand Sangeetham Inn” is an attempt to circumvent the earlier judgment and the trademark expungement order.
  • The interim injunction dated 11 February 2026 is made absolute, granting the relief prayed for by the applicant.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Trademark Infringement, Hospitality, Court Order