‘Grand Sangeetha Pure Veg’ Must Stop Using Its Restaurant Name, Pay ₹10 Lakh For Infringing Sangeetha Marks: Madras HC

In brief

The question

Whether the defendant’s use of “GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG” and associated branding infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademarks

The court held

The court held that the plaintiff had established ownership of its registered trademarks and infringement by the defendant.

It also directed

It decreed the suit as prayed, granting the reliefs sought, including the injunctions, surrender of infringing materials, rendition of accounts and Rs. 10,00,000 in damages; it made no order as to costs.

01Facts

The plaintiff claimed ownership of six registered trademarks used for its restaurant business, including marks incorporating “SANGEETHA” and a veena device.

p. 4 · ¶ 2–3

It alleged that the defendant’s restaurant name, “GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG,” and related branding infringed those marks and amounted to passing off.

p. 4 · ¶ 2–3

After sending a cease-and-desist notice, which the defendant did not answer, the plaintiff sued for injunctions, destruction of infringing material, accounts, and Rs. 10,00,000 in damages.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 2–3

Although the defendant had entered appearance and presented a written statement, it did not file the required application to condone delay or cure the written statement’s defects; it was set ex parte on 23 March 2026.

p. 6 · ¶ 4

The plaintiff’s partner testified as PW1 and the plaintiff produced 40 exhibits.

pp. 7, 11–13 · ¶ 6–9

02Issues

i.Whether the defendant’s use of “GRAND SANGEETHA PURE VEG” and associated branding infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademarks

pp. 9–11 · ¶ 11, 13–14

ii.Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the requested reliefs, including injunctions for infringement and passing off, surrender of infringing materials, rendition of accounts, and damages

pp. 2–3, 9–11 · ¶ 11, 14

03Law Applied

The suit was brought under Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provide the statutory framework for trademark infringement and passing-off claims and related reliefs; the judgment, however, does not set out or analyze the provisions’ specific tests.

p. 1, prayer · p. 9 · ¶ 11

The plaintiff also alleged copyright infringement, but the judgment does not identify or apply a specific copyright-law provision.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 8, 11

The plaintiff relied on Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and others, but the court did not discuss its principles in its reasons.

p. 9 · ¶ 9

The court’s stated basis for relief was its finding, on the documentary evidence, that the plaintiff owned registered marks which the defendant had infringed.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 13–14

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 27 Section 134 Section 135

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 7

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 63

04Reasoning

The court accepted the trademark certificates and related exhibits as establishing the plaintiff’s ownership and use of the registered marks.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 13–14

It relied on photographs and other evidence of the defendant’s signage, bills, online listings and promotional material to find that the defendant used a phonetically and visually similar trade name, with “GRAND” added as a prefix.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 13–14

The court also noted the unanswered cease-and-desist notice and concluded that infringement was established.

pp. 10–11 · ¶ 13–14

The judgment does not separately analyze the copyright allegation, assess the amount of damages, or explain the legal test for passing off.