M/S.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP vs HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:01.10.2026 Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
OA No. 673 of 2026
in
C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 192 OF 2026 & A NO. 2836 OF 2026
M/S. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP
Represented by its Designated Partners:
1.Mr.P.Rajagopal
2.Mr.P.Suresh
Having their Registered Office at:
st th
No. 7, Gandhi Nagar, 1 Main Road, 4 Floor,
Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
..Plaintiff(s)
Vs
M/s.Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr.Narayanan Chandrasekaran,
GG Towers, No.8, Rajappa Nagar,
M.C.Nagar, Thanjavur-613007
..Defendant(s)
PRAYER: This Original Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of
Original Side Rules read with XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, to grant interim
injunction restraining the respondent/defendant or their agents, representatives,
assignees or heirs from infringing the registered trademark of the
applicant/plaintiff and operating the restaurant in the name and style of
"HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG RESTAURANT" or any other similar
name, pending disposal of the suit.
For Applicant(s): Mr.L Rajasekar
For Respondent(s): Mr.Adith Narayan Vijayaraghavan
__________
Page1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
ORDER
Ground Facts:
The Plaintiff, Applicant in the above O.A. is a registered Limited
Liability Partnership firm, duly registered with the Registrar of Companies. The
Applicant/Plaintiff claims that a Hotel under the name and style of Hotel
Sangeetha Veg Restaurant was established in 1985, with its first outlet at Parry
Corner, Chennai by one of its designated Partners and in 2001, a partnership
firm was formed, which was later converted as a Limited Liability Partnership
firm in 2015, and ever since the Applicant has been doing business and all
Trademarks which stood registered in the erstwhile partnership firm were
registered/ transferred in the name of the Applicant/Plaintiff vide Registry
communication dated 17.03.2018. The Applicant has registrations under Classes
42 and 43 for the marks SVR Sangeetha, Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant SVR,
Sangeetha (Device – Veena), Sangeetha Veg. Restaurant (Veena mark device),
Sangeetha VEG express and SVR Sangeetha EXPRESS .
2. According to the Applicant, they have legal user certificates issued way
back in October 2018 (for the first 4 marks) and from 16.11.23023 (last 2
marks) and using the said names, the Applicant has been doing business, also
expanding its business not only across the city of Chennai, but also going
international, opening branches in the Middle East etc. The Applicant also
__________
Page2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
claims that its turnover is more than Rs.450 crores for the year ending
31.03.2025. The Applicant is also generating income by way of royalty by
permitting Franchise outlets, not only in India but also overseas.
3. The Applicant has also registered the artistic work, ‘ SVR Sangeetha ’
(with Veena device), obtaining necessary registration under the Copyright Act,
originally under the names of the designated partners, which has been
subsequently assigned in favour of the Applicant 01.01.2023 and pending
necessary change of name in their favour with the Copy Right Registry.
4. On the strength of the above claims, the suit has been filed for various
reliefs of injunctions, alleging infringement of the marks of the Plaintiff and
pending the suit the above original application, seeking an interim injunction to
restrain the Respondent, or any one claiming through or under the Respondent,
from infringing the registered trade mark of the Applicant and operating the
restaurant under the name and style of ‘HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG
RESTAURANT’.
5. I have heard Mr.L.Rajasekar, learned Counsel for the
Applicant/Plaintiff and Mr.Adith Narayan, learned Counsel for the
Respondent/Defendant.
__________
Page3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
6. Submissions of Mr.L. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the plaintiff in
brief:
Taking me through the plaint, affidavit in support of the interim
injunction application as well as documents filed in support of the same,
Mr.L.Rajasekar, learned counsel contended that the Applicant has been
extensively using its registered trademarks for the last several years and has
acquired good will and reputation and the general public have also associated
the marks with that of the Applicant, and with dishonest intention, the
Respondent has adopted very deceptively similar mark, only to deceive the
public, causing confusion in their minds, giving an impression that the
Respondent is also associated with the Applicant and thereby make unlawful
enrichment, at the cost of the Applicant. He would further contend that the
Respondent has widely advertised its inauguration of a restaurant/hotel with a
party hall in Thanjavur and taking me to the similarities in the mark, Mr.L.
Rajasekar argued that it’s a clear and undoubted case of infringement. He would
rely on the decision of the Apex Court, in Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc v. B.
Vijaya Sai and others , reported in 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 65 and pray for the
interim injunction being granted as prayed for.
7. Submissions of Mr.Adith Narayan, Counsel for the Respondent, in
brief:
(i) Firstly, Mr.Adith Narayan, learned counsel contended that the
__________
Page4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
Applicant’s marks are all either with a prefix or suffix, unlike the Respondent’s
mark, which also has a Hotel’ prefix and therefore there is no chance for any
deception or even confusion.
(ii) Secondly, he submitted that the Applicant has no presence in
Thanjavur and therefore, there is no cause for confusion at all.
(iii) Thirdly, referring to the devices used by the Applicant and
Respondent, Mr.Adith Narayan argued that the Applicant uses a Veena device,
whereas the Respondent uses a wheel and conch device and therefore it clearly
distinguishes the marks, not warranting any interim order.
(iv) Fourthly, the Respondent also has a banquet hall with the prefix
Grand and Sangetha is shown in very small size, besides also pointing out to the
difference in the colour scheme adopted by the Respondent.
(v) Fifthly, there is no acceptable material as to who complained of the
alleged infringement and there is non-compliance of Order XIX of the CPC as
well.
8. In support of his submissions, Mr.Adith Narayan, learned counsel has
also relied on the following decisions:
i) Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd , reported in
( 2001) 5 SCC 73 ,
ii) Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd , reported
in AIR 1980 SC 142 &
__________
Page5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
iii) Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers
Federation Limited , reported in (2018) 9 SCC 183
The learned Counsel for the Respondent therefore states that a person of
reasonable intelligence is not likely to be confused or deceived and no prima
facie case has been made out by the Applicant, entitling it to a grant of an
interim order, as prayed for.
9. ANALYSIS:
In order to ascertain whether there is an infringement of the Applicant’s
registered marks, by the Respondent, entitling the Applicant to an interim
injunction as prayed for, I have to first test whether the mark adopted by the
Respondent and impugned in the above suit is confusing with or deceptively
similar to the registered marks of the Applicant.
10. For better appreciation, the registered marks of the Applicant and the
adapted mark of the Respondent, are extracted and reproduced hereunder:
Plaintiff’s Mark Respondent’s Mark
Application No. 1441849 = Class: 42
Application No. 7570092 = Class: 43
– SVR SANGEETHA
- HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG
__________
Page6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026

Application No. 1441854 = Class: 42
Not registered
– Sangeetha (device of Veena)

Application No. 1464536 (word
mark) = Class: 42 – Sangeetha Veg.
Restaurant SVR
Application No. 1464537 (word
mark) = Class: 42 – Sangeetha Veg
Restaurant (Device of Veena Mark)
Application No. 4877037 = Class: 43
– Sangeetha VEG Express
Application No. 4877039 = Class: 43
– SVR Sangeetha EXPRESS

__________
Page7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
11. At the very outset, before proceeding any further, I notice that the
Respondent having adopted the name ‘Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Restaurant’
has also exhibited it in Tamil vernacular language, where the name ‘Sangeetha’
is identically reproduced in the Tamil name, despite one ‘E” alone being
omitted in the English version. The location of the Hotel of the Respondent,
admittedly, is opposite to the world famous Brihadeeswara Temple, popularly
known as Big Temple. It is located in Thanjavur, one of the 12 biggest cities in
Tamil Nadu. Given the rich cultural heritage of this place, it is an undeniable
fact that there is a huge floating population visiting this city, especially to see
the Big temple. This has to be borne in mind, while addressing the argument of
Mr.Adith Narayan that sine the Applicant has no branch in Thanjavur, there is
no likelihood of confusion. The Applicant, by affidavit as well documentary
evidence, prima facie, has been able to show that their branches are spread not
only across the State, but also the country and even across the seas. Given the
number of visitors or travellers from various parts of the world to the city of
Thanjavur, it is therefore highly possible that they may only see the
Respondent’s hotel as that of the Applicant’s, the Applicant having already been
in the hotel market industry for decades and having earned a reasonable, even if
not great reputation and goodwill. Therefore, from this angle, I do not see the
fact that the Applicant not having any branch in Thanjavur to be of any material
bearing at all, when it comes to testing whether the marks of the Applicant are
__________
Page8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
being infringed by the Respondent.
12. As already indicated, any person who reads the Tamil name of the
Respondent’s hotel would only get a clear indication of ‘Sangeetha” since it is
how the Respondent has adopted its name in the Tamil sign boards. It is only in
the English name that an ‘e’ alone has been omitted. It is not as if in Tamil
language, there is no equivalent word or manner to replicate the English name,
‘Sangethas’ and it is very much possible to exactly convey the same spelling
and even a different pronunciation, if really intended. Admittedly, this also has
not been done. The local population, naturally, would be more familiar with
Tamil language, than English, and is also therefore very likely to get confused
as well. The adoption of the mark by the Respondent is therefore, not honest or
bona fide. In any event, the Respondent has started using its mark very recently
and has no registrations in place as well, as on date.
13. Yet another argument of Mr.Adith Narayan, learned counsel is that
the colour scheme is entirely different and even the device mark is distinct and
therefore, there is absolutely no reason for any confusion or deception. Though
it may be true that the device used and registered in favour of the Applicant is a
Veena and there is no connection to a wheel and conch that is used by the
Respondent. It is the contention of the Counsel for the Respondent that
therefore, a person of reasonable intelligence will certainly note the differences
__________
Page9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
which are visible and consequently the Applicant fails in the key test, thereby
disentitling it to an interim injunction.
14. This argument does sound very fanciful at first blush. However, I am
reminded of a couple of quotes in Tamil, which would be very relevant to
employ here. Famous Tamil poetess, Avvaiyar has said “
grp te;jhy;
gj;Jk; gwe;J nghFk; (Pasi vandhaal pathum parandhu pohum)" which
literally means if hunger comes, even the ten virtues will fly away.One another
famous idiom is “ grp fz;z fl;LJ ( pasi kanna kattudhu) ”. The true
import and meaning of these is that when a person is really hungry, he becomes
blind, or, in other words hunger blocks a person’s vision.
15. I deem it fit to apply these quotes to the facts on hand. A person,
especially who is hungry is the most potential customer for the Respondent. He
is not going to see or notice the colour scheme or the device marks used, but
will easily get carried away by “Sangethas” and “ r';fPjh!; ” in Tamil. In fact,
applying the quote and the idiom that I have discussed above, a customer would
easily be deceived by the name of the Respondent and would be blind to the
colour scheme, spelling, viz., omission of an ‘e’, use of ‘Hotel’ as a prefix or
even the device marks and is very likely to be carried away by the name and
only associate it with the Applicant.
__________
Page10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
16. As regards lack of particulars regarding the complaints received and
failure to comply with Order XIX CPC, I find averments in the affidavit with
regard to how the Applicant came to know of the alleged infringement and even
a bill issued by the Respondent and photographs have also been enclosed in the
typed set of papers, prima facie consideration is what is relevant and necessary
at this interlocutory stage and hence I do not see any merit in these objections as
well. These can always be tested during trial of the suit. Presently, I am
concerned with the trinity tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss and hardships. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am
satisfied that the Applicant has passed all the three and is certainly entitled to
grant of an interim injunction as prayed for.
17. Coming to the decisions that have been relied on by the learned
counsel on either side,
In Cadila ’s case, (referred herein supra), the Apex Court held that the
similarity between the competing marks will have to be seen to ascertain
whether there is a likelihood of deception or causing confusion. I cannot have
any quarrel over the said principle. On facts, the Apex Court, held that a
purchaser in India cannot be equated with a purchaser of goods in England and
Courts have to go into the question of comparable strength and the fact that a
trade may relate to goods largely sold to illiterate or badly educated persons and
__________
Page11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
therefore the issue has to be approached from the point of view of a man of
average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Even applying this ratio, I can
only see, for reasons recorded hereinabove, the Applicant is entitled to interim
protection.
18. In Corn Products ’ case, (referred herein supra), the Apex Court held
that the question whether the two marks are likely to give rise to confusion is
not a question of first impression and it is for the Court to decide the question.
The Apex Court also held that the marks will have to be taken as a whole and in
fact on facts, the Apex Court held that apart from the syllable “ co ”, the marks
were identical. This case is also, in my considered opinion, not in any manner
benefitting the Respondent.
19. In Nadhini Deluxe ’s case, (referred herein supra), the Apex Court
held that though there is phonetic similarity, the trademarks with logos adopted
by the parties are altogether different. Testing the competing marks on hand, the
Court held that there is hardly any similarity. I have elaborately discussed as
under what circumstances, the customers are likely to flock to the Respondent’s
hotel and the higher probabilities of the public being confused and even
deceived. Hence, I am unable to apply the ratio laid down in this case, to the
facts in the case on hand.
__________
Page12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
20. In Renaissance Hotel ’s case, (referred herein supra), the Supreme
Court held that the Respondent who is alleged of infringement and passing off,
before availing the benefit of Section 30 of the Act, has to establish the use of
the mark was not to take unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive
character or repute of the mark, and that use is in accordance with honest
practices in industrial and commercial matters. I have to deal with it at great
length, as to how the Applicant is the first and prior user and how the action of
the Respondent cannot be brought within ‘honest’ or ‘bona fide’ use. Applying
the ratio laid down in this case, the Applicant is certainly entitled to protect its
registered marks, pending disposal of the suit.
21. In fine, this Original Application stand allowed and interim injunction
is granted as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
RKP
__________
Page13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4379
O.A. NO.673 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI J.
RKP
OA No. 673 of 2026
AND
C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 192 OF 2026, A NO. 2836 OF 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )