Confusingly similar marks may be enjoined on allied goods likely to imply common commercial origin.

The plaintiff claimed rights in the registered mark ANNAPOORNA, derived from its predecessor’s use of “Sree Annapoorna” for food products from about 1980.

The defendant, which began business in 2015, used ANNAPURNA, including “ANNAPURNA SWADISHT,” for packaged snacks, fryums and related products.

On 5 August 2026, the Court granted the plaintiff ad interim injunctions against infringement and passing off.

The defendant applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate or modify them, relying, among other things, on the difference between its snacks and the plaintiff’s spices and on the plaintiff’s earlier knowledge of its mark.

The plaintiff’s predecessor had opposed the defendant’s trademark applications from 2023, although the plaint stated that the plaintiff learned of the defendant in March 2026.

Whether the defendant’s use of ANNAPURNA for packaged snacks and related goods was prima facie likely to cause confusion or association with the plaintiff’s registered ANNAPOORNA mark

Whether the plaintiff’s prior knowledge of the defendant’s mark, delay in bringing suit, or alleged suppression justified vacating the interim injunction on grounds of acquiescence or under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC

Whether the injunction should be vacated or modified because it extended to “any goods,” and whether the defendant’s operational hardship justified permitting continued use of the mark

Whether the challenge under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, could be determined in these applications

Under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, use of a similar mark for similar goods infringes a registered mark where it is likely to cause confusion or association; the presumption under Section 29(3) applies only where both the marks and goods are identical.

Registration does not automatically confer a monopoly over every product in a class, and the restraint should be limited to goods for which likely confusion is established.

Section 34 protects qualifying prior use, while Section 37 concerns assignment by a registered proprietor.

Under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, a court may discharge, vary or set aside an injunction; the first proviso addresses knowingly false or misleading statements on material particulars.

Mere delay, without conduct amounting to assent or encouragement, does not establish acquiescence (Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines (P) Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448; Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90).

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act requires pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is contemplated; the Court left its application to be decided separately.

The Court found the marks phonetically very similar and considered that consumers with imperfect recollection could perceive the defendant’s snacks as another product line of the plaintiff, particularly because both businesses dealt in food products and the defendant used ANNAPURNA as a house mark.

The defendant’s use on papads and fryums was especially significant because the plaintiff’s claimed product range included appalams and related goods.

The defendant’s proposed use of “ANNAPURNA SWADISHT” and disclosure of its corporate identity did not necessarily remove the risk of commercial-association confusion.

The Court rejected acquiescence because the predecessor’s trademark oppositions asserted, rather than surrendered, its rights; it nevertheless disapproved the inaccurate pleading about when the plaintiff learned of the defendant and the discrepancy concerning the plaintiff’s incorporation date.

Those inaccuracies did not warrant complete vacation, but the injunction had to be confined to goods and uses for which likely confusion was shown, rather than extending indiscriminately to “any goods.”

The Section 12A objection was left open.

It allowed O.A. Nos. 778 and 779 of 2026 and made the ad interim injunctions absolute pending disposal of the suit, with the restraint understood to be confined to the goods and uses for which protection was established; it dismissed A. Nos. 3875 and 3876 of 2026.

The Section 12A issue was left for consideration in any Order VII Rule 11 CPC application, and there was no order as to costs.