Greenmount Barred For Now From Using “Brahmin Sambar Powder” As Kerala HC Upholds Wipro’s Interim Injunction on Prima Facie Prior Use

Wipro Enterprises, which claimed ownership of the “Brahmins” trade mark and acquired the Brahmins group business, sued Greenmount Spices for using “Brahmin” and “Brahmin Sambar Powder” on food products.

It sought an injunction against use of those expressions, including on product packaging and in advertising.

Greenmount contended that its distinctive mark was “Greenmount” and that “Brahmin Sambar Powder” was merely descriptive; it also claimed use since 2011 and relied on Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Trial Court granted Wipro’s application for temporary injunction. Greenmount appealed against that order.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 distinguish infringement claims from passing off and provide that valid registration confers an exclusive right to use the mark for the registered goods or services, subject to the Act and registration limitations; Section 29 sets out when use of a mark constitutes infringement.

Section 30(2)(a) excludes infringement where use genuinely indicates the kind or another characteristic of goods, but whether the use is descriptive depends on its context and presentation.

Section 135 authorises injunctions in infringement and passing-off suits.

Interim injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; under Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court unless the order is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles.

The Court also relied on Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh for the interlocutory-injunction principles and limited appellate review, and on Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia for the principle that injunctions ordinarily follow in cases of trade mark or copyright infringement.

Wipro’s materials, including documents indicating that its predecessor’s food products were launched in 1987 and registrations incorporating “Brahmins,” provided prima facie support for prior commercial use; Greenmount’s own case placed its use of “Greenmount Brahmin Sambar Powder” from 2011.

The Court held that “Greenmount” being used as a mark did not, by itself, answer whether “Brahmin Sambar Powder” was presented so as to suggest a commercial association.

The descriptive-use defence required assessment of the registration particulars and the product’s overall presentation, including the prominence and placement of the words—matters requiring trial rather than final resolution at the interlocutory stage.

Given the prima facie case and the potential erosion of the mark’s distinctiveness, the Court found the balance of convenience favoured Wipro and the potential injury was not readily compensable in damages.

Applying the restrained standard for appellate interference, it found no arbitrariness or perversity in the Trial Court’s order.

It directed the Trial Court to decide the suit according to law, untrammelled by observations in either the impugned order or the appellate judgment.