M/s Sangeetha Caterers And Consultants Llp vs M/s Grand Sangeetha Pure Veg

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
27.07.2026
04.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
M/s Sangeetha Caterers And Consultants LLP
Represented By Its Designted Partners
1.Mr.P.Rajagopal
2. Mr.P.Suresh
Having their Registered Office at:
No.7, Gandhi Nagar, 1st Main Road,
4th Floor, Adyar, Chennai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
M/s Grand Sangeetha Pure Veg
Represented By Its Proprietor R.Padmanaban
No.1051, National Highway 47,
Vinnamangalam, Ambur,
Tirupathur - 635 807.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The present suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules
and Order VII Rule 1 of CPC Read with Section 27, 134, and 135 of the
Trademarks Act 1999, and Proviso 1 of Section 7 of the commercial Courts Act,
2015 for the following reliefs:-
(A) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
legal representatives, their successors in business, assigns,
franchisees, servants or agents from operating the restaurant
business by infringing the plaintiffs registered trademarks "SVR
SANGEETHA", "SVR SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT",
"SANGEETHA (with a VEENA MARK)", "SANGEETHA
__________
Page1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
VEG. RESTAURANT WITH VEENA MARK" "Sangeetha
Veg express (with a Veena Mark)" and "SVR Sangeetha
EXPRESS" or by use of confusingly similar or any other mark
deceptively and identically similar to the Plaintiff's registered
trademark or in any other manner whatsoever;
(B) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
legal representatives, their successors in business, assigns,
franchisees, servants or agents from operating restaurant
business by the name "GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG" or
any other similar marks to that of the plaintiff's registered
trademark from committing the act of passing off and enabling
others in passing off the restaurant business in the deceptively
similar mark which is identical to the plaintiff's registered
trademark in any manner whatsoever;
(C) the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for
destruction of all their packing containers, card board boxes,
packing materials, covers and carry bags, screen prints, bills,
sign boards, billing software, menu cards, and any other
material in their possession bearing the mark "GRAND
SANGEETHA PURE VEG" or any other similar marks to that
of the plaintiff's registered trademark which is identical to the
plaintiff's registered trademark;
(D) directing the defendant to render the rendition of theirs
accounts from the date of commencement of their restaurant till
the date of filing of the plaint;
__________
Page2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
(E) the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) as damages for their
wrongful and illegal act by use of the registered trademark;
(F) for cost of the suit; and
(G) for such further and other reliefs as this Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L Rajasekar
For Respondent(s): Set ex-parte on 23.03.2026
JUDGMENT
The present suit had been filed interalia seeking a permanent injunction
restraining the defendant, their legal representatives, their successors in
business, assigns, franchisees, servants or agents (i) from operating the
restaurant business by infringing the plaintiffs registered trademarks "SVR
SANGEETHA", "SVR SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT",
"SANGEETHA (with a VEENA MARK)", "SANGEETHA VEG.
RESTAURANT WITH VEENA MARK" "Sangeetha Veg express (with a
Veena Mark)" and "SVR Sangeetha EXPRESS" or by use of confusingly
similar or any other mark deceptively and identically similar to the Plaintiff's
registered trademark and (ii) from operating restaurant business by the name
"GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG" or any other similar marks to that of
__________
Page3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
the plaintiff's registered trademark from committing the act of passing off and
enabling others in passing off the restaurant business in the deceptively similar
mark which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark in any manner
along with such other reliefs that are as prayed for in the prayer
2. The facts giving rise to the present case is that the plaintiff is a Limited
Liability Partnership Firm which was floated in the year and was registered with
the Registrar of Companies vide Conversion Certificate bearing LLP AAD-
7003 dated 01.04.2015. It is stated that the partnership firm was formed in the
year 2001, the trademarks were held by the two partners individually. The
plaintiff’s firm was reconstituted on 01.04.2017 and a subsequent amendment to
the profit sharing ratio was executed by the means of the Amendment to the
partnership vide Deed dated 01.04.2021 and thereafter the plaintiff firm had
inducted two more partners into the plaintiff’s firm vide the Reconstituted
Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2022. All the Trademarks which stood in the
name of the partnership firm were registered under the name of the plaintiff
vide submission of Form-24 dated 19.02.2016 before the Registrar of
Trademarks on 22.02.2016, pursuant to which the said application was allowed
vide communication dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Trade Marks Registry,
thereby recording the change in ownership in respect of six trademarks, namely,
SVR Sangeetha , Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant SVR , Sangeetha (Device of
Veena) , Sangeetha Veg Restaurant (Device of Veena) , Sangeetha VEG
__________
Page4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
express and SVR Sangeetha EXPRESS under class 42 and 43 accordingly, as
stated therein.
3. Further it is averred that the plaintiff in order to safeguard its artistic
work in “SVR Sangeetha” and “Sangeetha (with Veena Device)”, the same
were registered under the Copyrights Act in the name of the designated partners
of the firm. In turn the designated partners of the Plaintiff firm had executed
two separate Assignment Deeds dated 01.01.2023, assigning the Proprietorship
of the copyrights of the aforesaid mark infavour of the plaintiff firm. Thereafter
the plaintiff firm continued using the aforesaid trademarks in their business and
had earned a impeccable reputation among the consumers. The plaintiff firm
was engaged in the business of running restaurants and hotels for about four
decades in both India and abroad. Subsequently the plaintiff was made aware by
one of its customers of the existence of the defendant’s restaurant, wherein the
defendant had named its restaurant as “GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG ”,
which is very much similar to that of the plaintiff’s registered trademark
“SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT (with Veena mark)” . The defendant
had copied the plaintiff’s registered trademark by adding word “ GRAND ” in
front of the word “ Sangeetha ” as a prefix, thereby creating confusion in the
minds of the consumers. It is averred that the defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s
registered trademark with the intention of passing off its goods as those of the
Plaintiff and unlawfully exploiting the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation for its
__________
Page5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
own gain. Therefore upon the knowledge of the said infringement, the plaintiff
had issued legal notice dated 02.07.2024 to the defendant seeking cease and
desist the use of the registered trademark of the plaintiff and the defendant had
acknowledged the said notice on 04.07.2024. However the defendant had not
issued any reply to the said notice and continued with its infringement.
Therefore the plaintiff had instituted the present suit interalia seeking the
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s
registered trademark along with other reliefs.
4. Its had been submitted that the defendant had both e-filed and
physically filed the written statement before the registry. As a consequence
thereof, this Court, vide its order dated 10.03.2025, directed the Registry to
verify whether the written statement had been filed within 120 days and, if so,
to receive the same, subject to the same being accompanied with application for
condonation of delay. The Registry made an endorsement that the written
statement had been presented within 120 days. Nevertheless, the Defendant was
required to file an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the
written statement. Thereafter, on several occasions, the Defendant sought time
for filing the said application. Despite repeated opportunities being granted, the
Defendant failed to file the application for condonation of delay. The written
statement was also returned by the Registry on 17.03.2025 for rectification of
the defects. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 23.03.2026
__________
Page6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
the Defendant continued to remain unrepresented. Consequently, the Defendant
was set ex-parte by this court vide its order dated 23.03.2026.
5. Heard Mr.L.Rajasekar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff
6. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW1 as plaintiff side witness
and had marked 40 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P40 as the evidence.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff would submit
that the plaintiff’s firm was originally commenced as a partnership firm vide
document dated 22.11.2001 marked as Ex.P1 and the plaintiff’s firm was
converted into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Firm vide Limited
Liability Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2015 marked as Ex.P4. It is submitted
that the trademarks standing in the names of the individual partners were
brought within the fold of the Plaintiff Firm by filing Form-24 before the Trade
Marks Registry, pursuant to which the Trade Marks Registry, by order dated
17.03.2018, marked as Ex.P7, recorded the change in ownership of the said
trademarks in favour of the Plaintiff Firm. The learned counsel submits that
subsequently six trademarks have been registered under the plaintiff’s firm
which can be substantiated vide the trademark certificates marked as Ex.P8 to
Ex.P13. It is submitted that the defendant had had infringed the plaintiff’s
__________
Page7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
registered trademark by naming its restaurant as “GRAND SANGEETHA
PURE VEG” by merely adding the prefix ‘ Grand’ in front of the word
‘Sangeetha’ with an intention of infringing the plaintiff’s already existing
trademark “SANGEETHA VEG. RESTAURANT (with Veena mark)” . The
learned counsel submits that the said act of the defendant clearly amounts to the
infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark as both the trademarks are deceptively
similar. He further submits that the impugned trademark of the defendant had
been used by him in all the bills, name board, brochures and menu cards are
deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
8. The learned counsel also submits that the defendant had not only
infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademark but had also violated the copy right
by using the same font in both English and Vernacular language. He submits
that the impugned trademark of the defendant had also been used in its logo
“Hotel Grand Sangeetha Restaurant” , wherein the word SANGEETHA alone
had been written in a bold and bigger size in a cursive font, which is again
similar to that of the plaintiff, whereas the other words like ‘ hotel ’, ‘ grand ’ and
‘ Restaurant ’ are all in smaller fonts just to create confusion in the minds of the
consumer. The learned counsel further submits that defendant had further
registered their business within the GST Portal having GSTIN bearing
No.33ALQPP0717Q1ZJ wherein the defendant had named its restaurant as
“GRAND SANGEETHA” and have also obtained FSSAI license.
__________
Page8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
9. That apart, the learned counsel submits that the Defendant had made its
restaurant available on the Swiggy portal under the impugned trademark, which
is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. Therefore, the
learned counsel contends that the Defendant had adopted and used the
impugned trademark with a malafide intention to create confusion and
deception in the minds of consumers and to pass off its products as those of the
Plaintiff. Hence, in addition to the other reliefs sought in the suit, the Plaintiff
has also claimed damages of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Defendant for the
wrongful and unlawful use of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark. In support of
the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the case of Renaissance Hotel
Holding INC Vs B.Vijaya Sai and others . In view of the foregoing, the learned
counsel prays that this Court may be pleased to decree the suit as prayed for.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the plaintiff and perused the materials available on record before
this Court.
11. The instant suit had been laid complaining infringement of a
registered Trade Mark and copy right of the plaintiff by the sole defendant
whereunder prayers for injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the
__________
Page9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
registered Trade Mark, passing off, surrender for destruction of all the packing
containers etc., in possession of the defendant, rendition of accounts and
payment of damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- had been sought for.
12. The defendant even though, earlier entered appearance through a
counsel had failed to file his written statement within the time prescribed and
thereafter had remained ex-parte and was also set ex-parte on 23.03.2026.
13. The plaintiff had examined one of the partners as PW1 and he has
filed various documents to substantiate his claim in the suit. By placing Exs.P2
and P8 to P13 & P15 to P32, the plaintiff had substantiated that it is the owner
of the registered Trade Mark and had been exploiting the said Trade Mark. By
placing oral and documentary evidences under Exs.P32 to P37, the plaintiff had
also substantiated that the defendant had been infringing its registered Trade
Mark by using a phonetically and visually similar Trade name however, with
the prefix of the word “GRAND” . Further it is also substantiated the issuance of
a cease and desist notice calling upon the defendant to desist from using the
Trade Mark and the defendant had not replied to the same.
14. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents which has been
exhibited and referred to above it is clearly substantiated that the plaintiff
__________
Page10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
owned the registered Trade Mark which had been infringed by the defendant. In
that regard, this Court do not have any hesitation to decree the suit as prayed
for.
15. Accordingly, the suit stands decreed as prayed for. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
Plaintiff's witness:
P.W.1 – Mr. P.Suresh
Documents exhibited by the petitioner:
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P1 The partnership deed of the plaintiff, dated 22.11.2001
Ex.P2 The copyright certificate for SVR Sangeetha of the plaintiff, dated
04.09.2002.
Ex.P3 The copyright certificate for Sangeetha with Veena mark of the
plaintiff, dated 16.01.2004
Ex.P4 The limited liability partnership agreement of the plaintiff, dated
01.04.2015.
Ex.P5 is the certificate of conversion of plaintiff, dated 01.04.2015
Ex.P6 The reconstituted limited liability partnership agreement of plaintiff,
dated 01.04.2017.
Ex.P7 The communication confirming order passed in Form 24 of plaintiff,
__________
Page11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
dated 17.03.2018.
Ex.P8 The legal use certificate for TM No.1441849, dated 23.10.2018.
Ex.P9 The legal use certificate for TM No.1441854, dated 23.10.2018.
Ex.P10 The legal use certificate for TM No.1464536, dated 23.10.2018.
Ex.P11 The legal use certificate for TM No.1464537, dated 23.10.2018.
Ex.P12 The legal use certificate for TM No.4877037, dated 16.11.2023
Ex.P13 The legal use certificate for TM No.4877039, dated 16.11.2023
Ex.P14 The limited liability partnership deed, dated 01.04.2022.
Ex.P15 The statement advertising expenses for 37th anniversary as on
31.03.2023 along with copy of invoices.
Ex.P16 The statement of accounts for the social media payment for the year
2022-2023 along with copy of the invoices.
Ex.P17 The statement of turnover of the Franchised outlets for the year
ending 31.03.2023.
Ex.P18 The statement accounts for the sales turnover for the overseas
franchised outlets for the year ending 31.03.2023.
Ex.P19 The statement of accounts for the sales turnover for the Management
outlets for the year ending 31.03.2023.
Ex.P20 The photographs of the Adyar Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant.
Ex.P21 The photographs of the Egmore Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant
Ex.P22 The photographs of the Parrys Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant.
Ex.P23 The photographs of the Guindy Branch of the plaintiff's restaurant
Ex.P24 The photographs of the Mylapore Branch of the plaintiff's
restaurant.
Ex.P25 The photographs of the Nandambakkam Branch of the plaintiff's
restaurant.
Ex.P26 The photographs of the Egmore Railway station Branch of the
plaintiff's restaurant.
Ex.P27 The photographs of the Nelson Manickam Road Branch of the
plaintiff's restaurant.
Ex.P28 The photographs of the Nungambakkam Branch of the plaintiff's
restaurant.
__________
Page12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
Ex.P29 The photographs of the Triplicane Branch of the plaintiff's
restaurant.
Ex.P30 The photographs of the Urapakkam Branch of the plaintiff's
restaurant
Ex.P31 The photographs of the Thirumazhisai Branch of the plaintiff's
restaurant.
Ex.P32 The photographs of the defendant restaurant's sign board.
Ex.P33 The defendant restaurant's bill along with photostat copy.
Ex.P34 The GST Webpage of the defendant's restaurant.
Ex.P35 The Swiggy portal of the defendant's restaurant.
Ex.P36 The FSSAI webpage of the defendant's restaurant.
Ex.P37 The brochures of the defendant
Ex.P38 The legal notice issued by the plaintiff
Ex.P39 The postal registration receipt.
Ex.P40 The postal tracking report.
Certificate Part -A and Part – B filed under section 63(4)(C) of Bharatiya
Sakshya Aadiniyam, 2023 for Ex.P15 to Ex.P32, Ex.P34 to Ex.P36 and Ex.P40.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
__________
Page13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )

C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 180 of 2024
04-11-2026
__________
Page14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:56:16 pm )