Authority: Madras High Court

Order Date: 30-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Plaintiff – M/S. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP (designated partners Mr. P. Rajagopal and Mr. P. Suresh) with registered office at No. 7, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Defendant – M/s. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg, represented by proprietor Mr. Narayanan Chandrasekaran, GG Towers, Rajappa Nagar, M.C. Nagar, Thanjavur.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Original Application (OA No. 673 of 2026) under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with CPC Order XXXIX Rules 1‑2, seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the name “HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG RESTAURANT” or any similar name that infringes the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
  • Trademark Details: Plaintiff holds registrations in Classes 42 and 43 for marks including “SVR SANGEETHA”, “SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT SVR”, “SANGEETHA (Device – Veena)”, “SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT (Veena mark device)”, “SANGEETHA VEG EXPRESS”, and “SVR SANGEETHA EXPRESS”. Application No. 1441849 (Class 42) corresponds to “SVR SANGEETHA”.
  • Certificates: Legal user certificates issued in October 2018 for the first four marks and on 16‑11‑2023 for the last two marks.
  • Business Scale: Plaintiff reports turnover exceeding Rs 450 crore for the financial year ending 31‑03‑2025 and generates royalty income from franchise outlets in India and overseas, including branches in the Middle East.
  • Copyright: Artistic work “SVR Sangeetha” (with Veena device) registered under the Copyright Act, originally in the names of the designated partners and assigned to the LLP on 01‑01‑2023; change of name pending with the Copyright Registry.
  • Defendant’s Mark: “HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG” (Application No. 7570092, Class 43). The name appears in Tamil vernacular with the same spelling “Sangeetha” except for the omission of an “e” in the English version.
  • Counsel Submissions: Plaintiff counsel Mr. L. Rajasekar argued extensive use, goodwill, and deception. Defendant counsel Mr. Adith Narayan contended no confusion due to different prefixes, devices (Veena vs. wheel & conch), colour schemes, and lack of plaintiff presence in Thanjavur.
  • Judicial Analysis: The Court examined likelihood of confusion, considering the tourist influx to Thanjavur, the plaintiff’s nationwide and international presence, and the similarity of the names in Tamil. The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments on device and colour differences, noting that a hungry consumer may overlook such distinctions.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001 5 SCC 73), Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd (AIR 1980 SC 142), Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd (2018 9 SCC 183), Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai (2022 LiveLaw SC 65).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the plaintiff satisfied the prima‑facie test, the balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss, and therefore granted the interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the contested mark.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • The suit will continue to trial for a final determination of the infringement claim.

Topics: Trademark Infringement, Hospitality