Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 09-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Plaintiff – GEF Foods India Private Limited (applicant); Defendant – Annapurna Swadisht Limited (respondent).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Trademark infringement and passing‑off suit filed in Commercial Division (C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 223 of 2026). The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s use of the mark “ANNAPURNA” (including “ANNAPURNA SWADISHT” and “ANNAPURNA SNACKS”) is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark “ANNAPOORNA”, causing likely consumer confusion.
  • Background: The plaintiff’s predecessor, Sree Annapoorna Foods, has been using the mark since ~1980 and obtained registrations Nos. 988210, 988211, 988212 (Class 30, applied 06‑02‑2001) and No. 1803022 (Class 29, applied 06‑04‑2009). An IP Assignment Deed dated 31‑01‑2025 transferred the business, trademarks, trade name and goodwill to GEF Foods, which applied on 24‑03‑2025 to have the registrations transferred to its name. Sales for FY 2023‑24 were reported at approximately Rs 41.41 crore.
  • Defendant’s Business: Originally formed as Annapurna Agro Industries (Kolkata) on 27‑11‑2015, later incorporated as Annapurna Swadisht Private Limited on 11‑02‑2022, converted to a public limited company on 08‑07‑2022 and listed on the NSE on 27‑09‑2022. It manufactures packaged snacks, namkeens, fryums, pellets, corn tortilla chips, cheese puffs, etc., with turnover of Rs 160.17 crore (2022‑23), Rs 264.43 crore (2023‑24), Rs 374.10 crore (2024‑25) and about Rs 414.92 crore (2025‑26).
  • Interim Relief: On 05‑08‑2026 the Court granted an ad‑interim injunction in O.A. Nos. 778 & 779 restraining the defendant from using “ANNAPURNA” in respect of any goods and from passing off its blended spices as those of the plaintiff.
  • Defendant’s Applications: The defendant filed A Nos. 3875 and 3876 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) seeking vacation of the injunction, arguing that the injunction improperly covered “any goods”, that its products are ready‑to‑eat snacks distinct from the plaintiff’s blended spices, that there was no actual confusion, and that the injunction would cause severe hardship (factory closures, loan defaults, shareholder loss). The defendant offered to limit its use to “ANNAPURNA SWADISHT” and to refrain from selling raw spices or blended masalas under the mark.
  • Plaintiff’s Arguments: The plaintiff emphasized its long‑standing prior use, statutory registrations, the deceptive similarity of the marks, the likelihood of confusion among low‑priced food items, and the irreparable injury to its goodwill. It contended that the balance of convenience favoured it and that the defendant’s turnover and size do not outweigh the plaintiff’s statutory rights.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court noted that the injunction’s wording “any goods” was overly broad and should be confined to the goods for which prima facie protection exists. However, it found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the likelihood of confusion between “ANNAPOORNA” (spices, masala powders, condiments, ready‑to‑cook mixes) and “ANNAPURNA” (packaged snacks, namkeens, fryums) was sufficient to justify interim relief. The Court rejected the defendant’s claim of material misstatement and acquiescence, held that the defendant’s hardship does not outweigh the plaintiff’s rights, and declined to modify the injunction.

Final Outcome

  • The ad‑interim injunction granted on 05‑08‑2026 in O.A. Nos. 778 and 779 is made absolute and will remain in force till the final disposal of the suit.
  • Applications A Nos. 3875 and 3876 seeking vacation of the injunction are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Trademark Infringement, Food Industry